Introduction to Political Science Research Methods

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/343658781
Introduction to Political Science Research Methods: An Open Education

Resource, ed. Franco, Lee, Vue, Bozonelos, Omae, and Cauchon.
Book · June 2020
CITATIONS READS
0 2,277
6 authors, including:
Dino Bozonelos Josue Franco

California State University, San Marcos Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District
13 PUBLICATIONS 62 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Masahiro Omae
San Diego City College
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Political Economy of Religious Tourism View project
Muslim Americans & Religious Tourism View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dino Bozonelos on 14 August 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Introduction to
Political Science
Research
Methods
1st Edition
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Introduction to
Political Science
Research Methods
1st Edition
Josh Franco, Ph.D., Cuyamaca College

Charlotte Lee, Ph.D., Berkeley City College
Kau Vue, M.A., M.P.A., Fresno City College
Dino Bozonelos, Ph.D., Victor Valley College
Masahiro Omae, Ph.D., San Diego City College
Steven Cauchon, Ph.D., Imperial Valley College
Introduction to Political Science Research Methods is an Open Education Resource licensed

under Creative Commons and funded by the Academic Senate for California Community
Colleges
Licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Non-Commercial
Introduction to Political Science Research Methods, 1st Edition, is licensed under Creative
Commons - Attribution - Non-Commercial (CC BY NC). To learn more, please visit:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/.
PDF Version ISBN-13: 978-1-7351980-0-2
About the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges

Formed in 1970, the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) is a 501(c)6
nonprofit organization. Created for the promotion and advancement of public community college
education in California, its general purposes are:
● To strengthen local academic senates and councils of community colleges;
● To serve as the voice of the faculty of the community colleges in matters of statewide
concern;
● To develop policies and promote the implementation of policies on matters of statewide
issues;
● To make recommendations on statewide matters affecting the community colleges.
About the ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative

The mission of the ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative (OERI) is to reduce the cost
of educational resources for students by expanding the availability and adoption of high-quality
Open Educational Resources (OER). OERI facilitates and coordinates the curation and
development of OER texts, ancillaries, and support systems.
Through recommendations to the ASCCC Executive Committee, OERI supports local OER
implementation efforts through the provision of professional development, technical support, and
technical resources.
If you haven't already please sign up for the ASCCC OER listserv (https://asccc.org/signup-
newsletters) to receive updates regarding resources, webinars, newsletters, and more. To view
useful resources for Biology, ECE/Child Development, Communication Studies, Psychology,
and Sociology, please visit the ASCCC OERI Canvas page
(https://ccconlineed.instructure.com/courses/4543).
This open education resource is dedicated to students who know
the struggle is real
Brief Table of Contents
Preface........................................................................................................................................... xv
About the Authors ........................................................................................................................ xvi
History of this OER ...................................................................................................................... xx
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................ xxi
Table of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xxii
Chapter 1 - Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2 - History and Development of the Empirical Study of Politics.................................... 22
Chapter 3 - The Scientific Method................................................................................................ 40
Chapter 4 - Theories, Hypotheses, Variables, and Units .............................................................. 55
Chapter 5 - Conceptualization, Operationalization, Measurement ............................................... 78
Chapter 6 - Elements of Research Design .................................................................................... 96
Chapter 7 - Qualitative Methods ................................................................................................. 112
Chapter 8 - Quantitative Research Methods and Means of Analysis ......................................... 129
Chapter 9 - Research Ethics ........................................................................................................ 153
Chapter 10 - Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 170
Appendices.................................................................................................................................. 175
References ................................................................................................................................... 177
Index ........................................................................................................................................... 181
Table of Contents
Preface........................................................................................................................................... xv
About the Authors ........................................................................................................................ xvi
Dr. Josh Franco ........................................................................................................................ xvi
Dr. Charlotte Lee ..................................................................................................................... xvi
Kau Vue, M.A., M.P.A ........................................................................................................... xvii
Dr. Dino Bozonelos ................................................................................................................ xvii
Dr. Masahiro Omae ................................................................................................................ xviii
Dr. Steven Cauchon ............................................................................................................... xviii
Grace Shackelford .................................................................................................................... xix
History of this OER ...................................................................................................................... xx
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................ xxi
Table of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xxii
Chapter 1 - Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter Outline ........................................................................................................................... 1
Section 1.1: Welcome ................................................................................................................. 1
Learning Objectives ................................................................................................................ 1
Section 1.2: The Social Network of Political Science ................................................................ 3
Section 1.3: Organization of the Book ........................................................................................ 5
Section 1.4: Analyzing Journal Articles ..................................................................................... 7
Section 1.5: Research Paper Project Management ................................................................... 13
Learning Objectives .............................................................................................................. 13
Key Terms/Glossary ................................................................................................................. 17
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 17
Summary of Section 1.1: Welcome ...................................................................................... 17
Summary of Section 1.2: The Social Network of Political Science ..................................... 18
Summary of Section 1.3: Organization of this Book ............................................................ 18
Summary of Section 1.4: Analyzing Journal Articles .......................................................... 18
Summary of Section 1.5: Research Paper Project Management........................................... 18
vi
Review Questions ..................................................................................................................... 18
Critical Thinking Questions ...................................................................................................... 19
Suggestions for Further Study .................................................................................................. 19
Websites ................................................................................................................................ 19
Journal Articles ..................................................................................................................... 20
Books .................................................................................................................................... 20
Contributor(s)............................................................................................................................ 20
References ................................................................................................................................. 20
Chapter 2 - History and Development of the Empirical Study of Politics.................................... 22
Chapter Outline ......................................................................................................................... 22
Section 2.1: Brief History of the Empirical Study of Politics................................................... 22
Section 2.2: The Institutional Wave.......................................................................................... 23
Why do you need to know about this? ...................................................................................... 23
Section 2.3: The Behavioral Wave ........................................................................................... 25
Section 2.4: Currents: Qualitative versus Quantitative ............................................................. 27
Section 2.5: Currents: Normative and Positive Views.............................................................. 29
Section 2.6: Emerging Wave: Experimental Political Science ................................................. 31
Section 2.7: Emerging Wave: Big Data and Machine Learning ............................................... 32
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 35
Summary of Section 2.1: Brief History of Empirical Study of Politics................................ 35
Summary of Section 2.2: The Institutional Wave ................................................................. 35
Summary of Section 2.3: The Behavioral Wave .................................................................. 35
Summary of Section 2.4: Currents: Qualitative versus Quantitative .................................... 35
Summary of Section 2.5: Currents: Politics: Normative and Positive Views....................... 35
vii
Summary of Section 2.6: Emerging Wave: Experimental Political Science ........................ 36
Summary of Section 2.7: Emerging Wave: Big Data and Machine Learning ...................... 36
Websites ................................................................................................................................ 37
Journal Articles ..................................................................................................................... 37
Books .................................................................................................................................... 37
Contributor(s)............................................................................................................................ 38
References ................................................................................................................................. 38
Chapter 3 - The Scientific Method................................................................................................ 40
Chapter Outline ......................................................................................................................... 40
Section 3.1: Philosophy of Science ........................................................................................... 40
Philosophy of Science ........................................................................................................... 41
Section 3.2: What is the Scientific Method? ............................................................................. 42
Section 3.3: Applying the Scientific Method to Political Phenomena...................................... 45
Journal Article #1.................................................................................................................. 46
Journal Article #2.................................................................................................................. 47
Journal Article #3.................................................................................................................. 49
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 51
Summary of Section 3.1: Philosophy of Science .................................................................. 51
Summary of Section 3.2: What is the Scientific Method? .................................................... 51
Summary of Section 3.3: Applying the Scientific Method to Political Phenomena ............. 51
Suggestions for Further Reading/Study .................................................................................... 53
Contributor(s)............................................................................................................................ 54
References ................................................................................................................................. 54
viii
Chapter 4 - Theories, Hypotheses, Variables, and Units .............................................................. 55
Chapter Outline ......................................................................................................................... 55
Section 4.1: Correlation and Causation .................................................................................... 55
Four Conditions of Causality .................................................................................................... 59
Section 4.2: Theory Construction ............................................................................................. 60
Remembering the Definition of Theory................................................................................ 60
Understanding How a Theory is Generated .......................................................................... 62
Applying a Model Theory..................................................................................................... 62
Analyzing Increasingly Complex Theories .......................................................................... 62
Creating a Theory ................................................................................................................. 63
Section 4.3: Generating Hypotheses from Theories ................................................................. 65
Section 4.4: Exploring Variables .............................................................................................. 66
Section 4.5: Units of Observation and Units of Analysis ......................................................... 69
Section 4.6: Causal Modeling ................................................................................................... 71
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 73
Summary of Section 4.1: Correlation and Causation............................................................ 73
Summary of Section 4.2: Theory Construction .................................................................... 74
Summary of Section 4.3: Generating Hypotheses from Theories ........................................ 74
Summary of Section 4.4: Exploring Variables ..................................................................... 74
Summary of Section 4.5: Units of Observation and Units of Analysis ................................ 74
Summary of Section 4.6: Causal Modeling .......................................................................... 74
References ................................................................................................................................. 76
ix
Chapter 5 - Conceptualization, Operationalization, Measurement ............................................... 78
Chapter Outline ......................................................................................................................... 78
Section 5.1: Conceptualization in political science .................................................................. 78
5.1.1 What is conceptualization? .......................................................................................... 79
5.1.2 Dimensions and indicators ........................................................................................... 80
5.1.3 Concept mapping ......................................................................................................... 81
Section 5.2: Operationalization................................................................................................. 83
5.2.1 Operationalize a concept .............................................................................................. 83
5.2.2 Collecting data ............................................................................................................. 84
Section 5.3: Measurement ......................................................................................................... 86
5.3.1 Types of measurement ................................................................................................. 86
5.3.2 Quality of measures ..................................................................................................... 89
5.3.3 Applying concepts and measures: Some measures of regime type ............................. 90
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 93
Summary of Section 5.1: Conceptualization in political science ......................................... 93
Summary of Section 5.2: Operationalization ........................................................................ 93
Summary of Section 5.3: Measurement ................................................................................ 93
Chapter 6 - Elements of Research Design .................................................................................... 96
Chapter Outline ......................................................................................................................... 96
Section 6.1: Introduction: Building with a Blueprint................................................................ 96
Section 6.2: Types of Design: Experimental and Nonexperimental Designs ........................... 98
Section 6.3: Components of Design: Sampling ...................................................................... 102
Learning Objectives ............................................................................................................ 102
x
Probability Sampling .......................................................................................................... 104
Nonprobability Sample ....................................................................................................... 105
Section 6.4: Components of Design: Observations ................................................................ 105
Key Terms/Glossary ............................................................................................................... 107
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 108
Summary of Section 6.1: Introduction ................................................................................ 108
Summary of Section 6.2: Designs ....................................................................................... 108
Summary of Section 6.3: Components: Sampling .............................................................. 108
Summary of Section 6.4: Components: Observations ........................................................ 109
Review Questions ................................................................................................................... 109
Critical Thinking Questions .................................................................................................... 110
Suggestions for Further Study ................................................................................................ 110
Contributor(s).......................................................................................................................... 111
References ............................................................................................................................... 111
Chapter 7 - Qualitative Methods ................................................................................................. 112
Chapter Outline ....................................................................................................................... 112
Section 7.1: What are qualitative methods? ............................................................................ 112
Strengths and limitations of qualitative methods ................................................................ 114
Section 7.2: Interviews............................................................................................................ 116
A note on conducting research on human subjects ............................................................. 118
Section 7.3: Exploring documentary sources.......................................................................... 119
Section 7.4: Ethnographic research......................................................................................... 121
Digital Ethnography ............................................................................................................ 123
Section 7.5: Case studies......................................................................................................... 124
What is a case study? .......................................................................................................... 124
xi
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 125
Summary of Section 7.1: What are qualitative methods? ................................................... 125
Summary of Section 7.2: Interviews ................................................................................... 126
Summary of Section 7.3: Exploring documentary sources ................................................. 126
Summary of Section 7.4: Ethnographic research ................................................................ 126
Summary of Section 7.5: Case studies ................................................................................ 126
Chapter 8 - Quantitative Research Methods and Means of Analysis ......................................... 129
Chapter Outline ....................................................................................................................... 129
Section 8.1: What are Quantitative Methods? ........................................................................ 129
Section 8.2: Making Sense of Data ......................................................................................... 133
Section 8.3: Introduction to Statistical Inference and Hypothesis Testing ............................. 139
Section 8.4: Interpreting Statistical Tables in Political Science Articles................................ 144
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 149
Summary of Section 8.1: What are Quantitative Methods? ............................................... 149
Summary of Section 8.2: Making Sense of Data ................................................................ 149
Summary of Section 8.3: Introduction to Statistical Inference ........................................... 149
Summary of Section 8.4: Interpreting Statistical Tables in Political Science Articles ....... 150
Contributor(s).......................................................................................................................... 152
References ............................................................................................................................... 152
Chapter 9 - Research Ethics ........................................................................................................ 153
Chapter Outline ....................................................................................................................... 153
Section 9.1 Ethics in Political Research ................................................................................. 153
xii
Section 9.2 Ethics and Human “Subjects” .............................................................................. 155
Section 9.3: Navigating Qualitative Data Collection .............................................................. 157
Section 9.4: Research Ethics in Quantitative Research .......................................................... 159
Section 9.5: Ethically Analyzing and Sharing Co-generated Knowledge .............................. 162
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 165
Summary of Section 9.1: Ethics in Political Research ....................................................... 165
Summary of Section 9.2: Ethics and Human “Subjects” .................................................... 165
Summary of Section 9.3: Navigating Qualitative Data Collection ..................................... 165
Summary of Section 9.4: Research Ethics in Quantitative Research ................................. 166
Summary of Section 9.5: Ethically Analyzing and Sharing Co-generated Knowledge ..... 166
Websites .............................................................................................................................. 167
Journal Articles ................................................................................................................... 168
Books .................................................................................................................................. 168
Contributor(s).......................................................................................................................... 168
References ............................................................................................................................... 168
Chapter 10 - Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 170
Chapter Outline ....................................................................................................................... 170
Section 10.1: Congratulations!................................................................................................ 170
Section 10.2: The Path Forward.............................................................................................. 170
Section 10.3: Frontiers of Political Science Research Methods ............................................. 172
Section 10.4: How to Contribute to this OER......................................................................... 173
Contributor(s).......................................................................................................................... 174
References ............................................................................................................................... 174
xiii
Appendices.................................................................................................................................. 175
Appendix #1: Course Identification (C-ID) Number System’s Course Descriptor for
Introduction to Political Science Research Methods .............................................................. 175
References ................................................................................................................................... 177
Index ........................................................................................................................................... 181
xiv
Preface
Introduction to Political Science Research Methods is a first-of-its-kind open education resource.
With chapter contributions from Dr. Charlotte Lee at Berkeley City College, Kau Vue at Fresno
City College, Dr. Dino Bozonelos at Victor Valley College, Dr. Masahiro Omae at San Diego
City College, Dr. Steven Cauchon at Imperial Valley College, and myself, the purpose of our
open education resource is to provide students interested in or majoring in political science a
solid introduction into the research methods of the discipline.
This textbook aligns with the California Community College’s C-ID Course Descriptor for
Introduction to Political Science Research Methods in content and objectives. Additionally,
support was provided by the Academic Senate for California Community College’s Open
Educational Resources Initiative.
I want to share my personal experience and motivation for helping write this textbook. When I
was a community college student, from 2003-2005, there was no introduction to political science
research methods course, let alone a textbook. Without such an introduction, I wasn’t aware of
the community of students, scholars, researchers, and practitioners of political science.
I struggled in my courses at the 4-year university when I was assigned a peer-review journal
article, asked to interpret empirical analyses, or write a literature review for a research paper. I
graduated and spent 5 years working in the California State Capitol and U.S. House of
Representatives in Washington, D.C. In 2012, I returned to earn my Ph.D. in political science.
Fair to say, the struggle returned.
I believe students should have the opportunity to introduce themselves to the research methods of
our discipline in their first year or second year of post-secondary education. Thus, the purpose of
our textbook is to afford students the opportunity to better prepare themselves for upper division
political science courses and to seriously consider earning a Masters or Ph.D. in the discipline.
My sincerest hope is that this open education resource, which is free to students and faculty and
available under the Creative Commons – Attribution – Noncommercial (CC BY-NC) license,
serves as a spark which welcomes the next generation into the discipline.
Josh Franco, Ph.D.

June 2020
xv
About the Authors
Dr. Josh Franco
Dr. Josh Franco, Cuyamaca College, Political Science: Josh Franco is a full-time, tenure-track
Assistant Professor at Cuyamaca College in east San Diego county, California. He holds a Ph.D.
and M.A. in Political Science, B.A. in public policy, and A.A. in economics and political
science. Dr. Franco has five years of experience working in the California State Government and
U.S. House of Representatives. Additionally, he was recently published in the peer-reviewed
Journal of Political Science Education.
Dr. Charlotte Lee
Dr. Charlotte Lee, Berkeley City College, Political Science: Charlotte Lee is full-time faculty at
Berkeley City College. She teaches courses in political science and global studies. She has
conducted fieldwork in Eastern Europe and China, culminating in several peer-reviewed
publications in comparative politics, and will draw on that research in writing OER materials on
qualitative research methods. Dr. Lee has participated in several Peralta district-wide OER
workshops. In February 2019, she co-facilitated an ASCCC OER Task Force webinar on
resources in political science. Her Ph.D. is in political science from Stanford University.
xvi
Kau Vue, M.A., M.P.A
Kau Vue, M.A. M.P.A., Fresno City College, Political Science: Kau Vue is an instructor of
political science at Fresno City College in Fresno, California. She holds an M.A. in political
science, a Master’s in Public Administration (M.P.A.) and a B.A. in political science and
economics.
Dr. Dino Bozonelos
Dr. Dino Bozonelos, Victor Valley College, Political Science: Dino Bozonelos is a Professor of
Political Science at Victor Valley College. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the
University of California, Riverside. Dr. Bozonelos focuses on global issues. These include
migration, political economy, religion and politics, and religion and tourism. He has participated
in numerous conferences, research groups and has been awarded several fellowships. He has
published in several journals, including Politics & Religion and International Journal of
Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage.
xvii
Dr. Masahiro Omae
Dr. Masahiro Omae, San Diego City College, Political Science: Masahiro Omae is an Associate
Professor at San Diego City College. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University
of California, Riverside. Additionally, Dr. Omae served as a staff researcher for the Children´s
Service Division at Riverside County Department of Public Social Services where he designed
and evaluated various services and programs to improve child welfare.
Dr. Steven Cauchon
Dr. Steven Cauchon, Imperial Valley College, Political Science: Steven Cauchon holds a Ph.D.
in Political Science from UC Riverside and is Assistant Professor at Imperial Valley College. Dr.
Cauchon specializes in International Relations and Political Theory, with a focus on
environmental justice and transnational social movements. His research examines the inequities
associated with the international movement of waste and the different processes by which
transnational environmental non-governmental organizations (TENGOs) support frontline
communities pursuing justice.
xviii
Grace Shackelford
Grace Shackelford is an illustrator and occasional animator who also enjoys writing Dungeons
and Dragons games. She is planning to start a webcomic in the near future but is often distracted
by video games. She is a student at San Diego State University who hopes to become an
elementary school teacher.
xix
History of this OER
● 1st Edition published 2020
xx
Table of Tables
Table 1-1: Title and author(s) for each chapter .............................................................................. 6
Table 3-1: Summary of Mapping Journal Article Abstract Content onto Scientific Method stages
....................................................................................................................................................... 50
Table 5-1: Aristotle’s forms of government (regime types) ......................................................... 80
Table 5-2: Some common sources of data for research in the social sciences ............................. 85
Table 5-3: Types of measures ....................................................................................................... 87
Table 5-4: Geddes types of nondemocracy (Example of a nominal measure) ............................. 91
Table 7-1: Summary of Qualitative Methods ............................................................................. 114
Table 8-1: Steven’s Four Scales of Measurement ...................................................................... 132
Table 8-2 ..................................................................................................................................... 134
Table 8-3 ..................................................................................................................................... 134
Table 8-4 ..................................................................................................................................... 141
Table 8-5 ..................................................................................................................................... 142
xxi
Table of Figures
Figure 1-1: Visualization of the social network of political science .............................................. 4
Figure 1-3: Visualization of the subfields of political science ....................................................... 5
Figure 1-4: Visualization of network of APSA, publishers, and journals ...................................... 8
Figure 1-5: Visualization of the peer-review process ..................................................................... 9
Figure 1-6: Visualization of puzzle............................................................................................... 10
Figure 1-7: Visualization of research paper parts ......................................................................... 14
Figure 1-8: Output of Google Scholar search of “politics and twitter” ........................................ 16
Figure 1-9: Proposed 8-week timeline for preparing your research paper ................................... 17
Figure 2-1: Visual comparison of positive view and normative view. ......................................... 31
Figure 3-1: Visualization of a simple model of scientific method................................................ 42
Figure 3-2: Visualization of an intermediate model of scientific method .................................... 43
Figure 3-3: Visualization of a complex model of scientific method ............................................ 44
Figure 4-1: Map of percent of women by U.S. state. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. .................... 57
Figure 4-2: Map of Women in Congress by U.S. state. Source: U.S. House of Representatives. 58
Figure 4-3: Correlation between concepts .................................................................................... 59
Figure 4-4: Visualization of a theory ............................................................................................ 61
Figure 4-5: Visualization of a complex theory ............................................................................. 63
Figure 4-6: Progress from Discrete to Continuous Variables, Panel 1 ......................................... 67
Figure 4-9: Causal model: A to B ................................................................................................. 72
Figure 4-10: Causal model: A to M to B ...................................................................................... 72
Figure 4-11: Causal model: C to A, A to B, and C to B ............................................................... 73
Figure 5-1: An example of a concept, dimensions, and indicators ............................................... 81
Figure 5-2: An example of a concept map created using the IHMC CmapTools computer
program by Vicwood40, CC BY-SA 3.0 ...................................................................................... 82
Figure 5-3: Dart board as metaphor for precision, reliability, and validity of measure by Christina
B. Castro, “Dart board,” 2008, Flickr creative commons, CC BY-NC 2.0 .................................. 90
Figure 6-1: Notation is useful to present a visual representation of research design. The figure
displays the notation for an experimental design.......................................................................... 99
Figure 6-2: A variation on the classic experiment, this is an experimental design that does not
contain a pretest. ......................................................................................................................... 100
Figure 6-3: The Solomon 4-Group Design is an experimental design that combines the classic
experiment with the posttest only design. ................................................................................... 100
Figure 6-4: Quasi-experiments may attempt to be similar to an experiment but, in this particular
case, lacks random assignment into groups. ............................................................................... 101
Figure 6-5: A nonexperimental design with pre-test and a post-test, but no control group. ...... 102
Figure 7-1: Conducting an interview in Cibeuying, Jawa Barat, Indonesia by Ikhlasul Amal,
photo taken on June 7, 2011, “Interview Scene,” CC BY-NC 2.0 ............................................. 117
Figure 7-2: An example of a government-issued documentary source by wundercapo, photo
taken on May 9, 2005, “1904 Sarah Connelly birth,” CC BY-NC 2.0 ....................................... 120
xxii
Figure 8-1: An Example of a Histogram..................................................................................... 135
Figure 8-2: Example of a bar chart ............................................................................................. 135
Figure 8-3: An Example of a scatter plot .................................................................................... 136
Figure 8-4: An Example of a Time-Series Plot .......................................................................... 137
Figure 8-5: Normal distribution Source: OpenIntro Statistics 4th Edition ................................. 139
Figure 8-6: An Example of a Regression Table.......................................................................... 146
Figure 9-1: Research participants from the Buklod Tao organization in Brgy by Steven Cauchon,
CC BY-NC-SA ........................................................................................................................... 155
Figure 9-2: Sample of IRB oral consent script by Steven Cauchon, CC BY-NC-SA ................ 156
xxiii
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Josh Franco, Ph.D.
Chapter Outline
• Section 1.1: Welcome
• Section 1.2: The Social Network of Political Science
• Section 1.3: Organization of the Book
• Section 1.4: Analyzing Journal Articles
• Section 1.5: Research Paper Project Management
Section 1.1: Welcome
Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
● Understand that you are welcomed to become a part of this increasingly diverse
disciplinary community
Welcome to political science: the scientific study of who gets what, when, where, how, and why.
But political science is more than the study of political behaviors, processes, and institutions.
Political science is a scholarly community of students, teachers, researchers, and practitioners
who deeply care about promoting the generation, dissemination, and application of knowledge to
improve our understanding of politics and solve public problems. And you are warmly welcomed
to learn more about this increasing diverse and lively community that resides all over the planet.
1
Political science is a relatively new scholarly community, with the national American Political
Science Association (APSA) having been established at the turn of last century in 1903. Over the
last 116 years, the discipline has dramatically evolved. From early efforts to establish the
discipline as a bulwark for inspiring a democratically minded public, to pioneering innovations
in political institutions and processes, the community has maintained a constant effort to
understand, and in ways shape, politics. And in its formative years, the discipline sought to
differentiate itself from the fields of history and economics. As the first generation of political
scientists were trained, the roots of political science as a “borrowing” discipline were
established.
For the students of today, what does it mean for political science to be a “borrowing” (Dogan
1996) discipline? It means that while political science has core tenets, theories, and ways of
analyzing the political world, it also does its best to utilize and leverage knowledge from a range
of other fields: history, economics, psychology, sociology, statistics, anthropology, computer
science, mathematics, cognitive science, and even biology. Additionally, these fields can borrow
from political science as well. For example, there is an entire field of political economics that
compares market-based systems with government-run systems. Therefore, students with a
diversity of intellectual interests can explore them through the borrowing framework core to
political science.
The evolution of political science is driven by teachers and researchers who hold a commitment
to professing and studying politics. But it is important to highlight, that current teachers and
researchers started as students, just like you, who were eager to learn more about their
government, to understand different political systems, and to explore the world beyond their
borders. With each new generation of political science students, educators, and researchers in
colleges and universities, new voices begin to shape the discipline in expected and unexpected
ways.
This book, Introduction to Political Science Research Methods (IPSRM), is an Open Education
Resource (OER) written by community college faculty and financially supported by the
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC). The purpose of this book is
three-fold: introduce college students to research methods of political science; provide a no-cost
textbook for adoption by faculty and use by students; and invite faculty and students to
contribute to the improvement of the book with their own contribution.
Students are the future of any academic discipline and scholarly community. In many ways, how
students of political science are educated now will shape the discipline for generations to come.
Thus, a no-cost textbook that introduces students to the research methods in political science
comes an important time in the discipline’s history. As advanced democracies are strained by
right-wing populist movements promoting austerity (Erel 2018), a rise in inequality that
manifests itself in students struggling with food and housing insecurity (Broton and Goldrick-
Rab 2018), and a Big Data revolution upending industries and displacing workers (Frank,
Roehrig, and Pring 2017; Peters 2017), there is a clear need for all political science students to
2
have access to learning about the methods used by our discipline to create new knowledge in the
field. It is important to empower current students and future researchers with the tools to
creatively grapple with the trends and challenges facing societies and governments.
Faculty, both teachers and researchers, have the dual task: welcoming students to the discipline
and imparting knowledge of political behaviors, processes, and institutions to create a publicly
spirited and scholarly minded and civically engaged public. While most students in colleges and
universities will only take one course in political science, largely to fulfill a social science or
national government requirement, there will be a fraction who choose to continue their study of
political science because something sparked their interest. This spark is, we hope, turns into a
gleaming shine that motivates students to shape their political institutions and processes at the
subnational, national, and global level. As faculty, our dual task is one we embrace. And what
this textbook provides is an introduction to research methods, a growing part of the core of our
discipline.
Lastly, as this is an Open Education Resource, you, whether student or teacher or researcher, are
wholeheartedly welcomed and invited to contribute to its improvement. Whether you find a
grammatical error, feel that a chapter section needs clarification, we overlook underrepresented
communities or voices in the examples we use, or that we are missing an entire topic, you are
welcomed to contribute. As a Creative Commons with Attribution and Non-Commercial (CC-
BY-NC) license, you can expand our this textbook and make it your own.
Section 1.2: The Social Network of Political Science
Learning Objectives
● Remember that political science is a scholarly community of students, teachers,
researchers, and practitioners
● Recognize that community members can be a part of different subfields
Political science is a discipline of students, teachers, researchers, and practitioners. But instead of
thinking of political science as an academic discipline, we can think of it as a community, or
better yet, a social network of individuals that associate it groups. The relationships within
groups of students, teachers, researchers, and practitioners typically consumes our time and
attention. For example, if you are a student, you may have disagreed with a classmate said during
an in-class discussion. You may have wanted to respond, but the class ended, so you needed to
wait for the next class to offer your perspective. Another example comes from a doctoral-level
graduate student who is presenting their research for the first time at an academic conference. A
graduate student is typically nervous about this experience because it is one of the first times
they are interacting with faculty beyond their university. This example is slightly different
because it demonstrates the interaction between groups.
3
Students
Teachers Researchers
Practitioners
Figure 1-1: Visualization of the social network of political science
The social network of political science is dynamic and the interactions between groups help
shape the discipline in meaningful ways. For example, the American Political Science
Association’s “Political Science Now” blog featured a blog post titled “APSA Announces the
New Editorial Team for the American Political Science Review”. The American Political
Science Review, also known as APSR, is a flagship journal for the discipline. This means that
many political science researchers seek to submit and have their articles accepted for publication
in the journal. What is notable about the new Editorial Team is that it’s all women: the first time
in the Association’s 100+ year history for this to occur. To many, this represents a sea change in
the discipline to not just ensure description representation, but also substantive representation.
Now, this sea change is only possible because the political science community is increasingly
diverse and interacting regularly.
In addition to the social network of political science, there is also sub-disciplinary networks of
students, teachers, researchers, and practitioners that engage in the acquisition, creation, and
dissemination of knowledge. At the core of this sub-disciplinary networks are the subfields of
political science: American Government and Politics; Comparative Politics; International
Relations; Political Theory; Political methodology; Public policy; and Political science
education.
4
Figure 1-2: Visualization of the subfields of political science
Each subfield is populated by students, teachers, researchers, and practitioners. For example, you
may be a 2nd-year political science student at a community college. For your fall semester, you
are enrolled in Introduction to International Relations and Introduction to Political Science
Research Methods. This means you would be a student in two of the seven subfields for the term.
And your professors are teachers within those subfields. You may discover that your professor of
Introduction to Political Science Research Methods also conducts Political Science Education
research, so that would also make them a researcher in another subfield. Individuals can be a part
of different subfields in different roles, and you as a student, are beginning to discover the
communities of individuals that make up these subfields. Consider another example: You decide
to write a paper in your international relations class about the number of indigenous people who
have served as UN representatives for countries around the world. To complete this paper, you
will explore scholarship in international relations, comparative politics, and perhaps even U.S.
government. Thus, as a budding political scientist, you traverse the sub-fields as well.
Section 1.3: Organization of the Book
Learning Objectives
● Remember the organization of the book and chapters
● Understand that you feedback can help improve the experience for future students
This textbook, Introduction to Political Science Research Methods (IPSRM), is an Open

Education Resource (OER) and consists of the following 10 chapters. A team of six political
5
scientists at six different community colleges in California co-authored this Open Education
Resource.
Table 1-1: Title and author(s) for each chapter
Chapter Chapter Title Authors

1 Introduction Josh Franco, Ph.D.
History and development of the Dino Bozonelos, Ph.D. and
2 empirical study of politics Josh Franco, Ph.D.
The scientific method Josh Franco, Ph.D. and Kau
3 Vue, M.A., M.P.A.
Theories, hypotheses, variables, and
4 units Josh Franco, Ph.D.
Conceptualization, operationalization
5 and measurement of political concepts Charlotte Lee, Ph.D.
Elements of research design including
6 the logic of sampling Kau Vue, M.A., M.P.A.
Qualitative research methods and
7 means of analysis Charlotte Lee, Ph.D.
Quantitative research methods and Masa Omae, Ph.D. and Dino
8 means of analysis Bozonelos, Ph.D.
Research Ethics Masa Omae, Ph.D. and Steven
9 Cauchon, Ph.D.
10 Conclusion Josh Franco, Ph.D.
Each chapter is structured to include the following seven elements: Chapter Outline, Chapter
Sections, Key Terms/Glossary, Summary of each Chapter Section, Review Questions, Critical
Thinking Questions, and Suggestions for Further Study.
The Chapter Outline provides a list of the chapter’s sections. You can click on the name of the
chapter section to move directly to that section. This outline is important because it quickly and
concisely provides you an overview of the chapter and a clear sense of its contents.
The Chapter Sections can be considered the body of the chapter because they collectively include
most of the substantive content. While each chapter author has endeavored to write Chapter
Sections as stand-alone parts, there will naturally be a flow and integration of the chapters.
Key Terms/Glossary serves as a repository of definitions of key terms used throughout the
chapter sections. The key terms are listed in alphabetical order. In some instances, key terms will
be linked to external content, such as Dictionary.com or Wikipedia, for students and faculty to
6
explore the term further. Additionally, key terms are linked within chapter sections, meaning you
can click on the key term and be directed to Key Terms/Glossary section.
Summary of the chapter provides a one paragraph synopsis of each section of the chapter. The
goal is to distill each chapter section into a bite-sized chunk that can be quickly referenced. Each
synopsis highlights a major concept of the section and serves as a reference. These should not be
viewed as replacements for reading a specific chapter section.
Review Questions include at least 5 questions that could serve as a pop quiz, clicker questions,
student self-check, or as part of a question bank used for a summative assessment, such as a
traditional midterm of final. In future iterations of the textbook, we plan on creating a Learning
Management System Course Shell that would convert these questions in both a Question Bank
and Quiz. Similarly, Critical Thinking Questions include at least 3 questions that can serve as a
short or long essay prompt for an in-class or at-home assessment.
Finally, Suggestions for Further Study includes links to websites, journal articles, and books
related to the chapter topic. The goal is to build a robust repository of resources that can be
explored by students and faculty. While we take effort to list OER or other open access content,
there will be resources that are currently not freely available. As the textbook expands, this
section will grow as well.
It is recommended that the chapters are followed for most coherent use. We recognize, and
encouraged, some faculty will want to assign specific chapters to complement an existing
textbook adoption. We expect that after the textbook is adopted and utilized, feedback from
faculty and students to help us refine the content of each chapter, and the ordering of the
materials.
Section 1.4: Analyzing Journal Articles
Learning Objectives
● Understand the process of analyzing journal articles
● Analyze a published peer-reviewed journal article
One way to understand research is by "standing on the shoulders of those who came before" -- by
understanding and building upon the research questions, data, and analysis generated by others in
the discipline. A good starting point is knowing where to read and explore peer-reviewed
scholarship in the discipline Every discipline, whether political science, anthropology, criminal
justice, nursing, economics, biology, engineering, and so on, is based on knowledge debated,
disseminated, and created in journal articles.
7
Journal articles are peer-reviewed publications that help scholars communicate ideas, theories,
empirical analyses, and conclusions. Journal articles are contained in journals that are typically
owned by publishing companies. For example, the University of Cambridge, located in the
United Kingdom, owns and operates Cambridge University Press. This press partners with the
American Political Science Association (APSA) to publish the following journals: American
Political Science Review, Perspectives on Politics, and PS: Political Science and Politics.
Additionally, APSA also partners with Taylor and Francis to publish the Journal of Political
Science Education (JPSE). The key difference between the 4 journals is that one, JPSE, is
published by Taylor and Francis, while the other 3 journals are published by Cambridge
University Press.
Figure 1-3: Visualization of network of APSA, publishers, and journals
The ability to critically read journal articles is a skill that is developed with practice. This skill is
especially useful when you are a university student. If you are contemplating attending graduate
school to earn a Masters, professional, or Doctoral degree, then analyzing journal articles is an
essential skill.
Peer-review is the process by which a scholar submits a manuscript to a journal editor. The
editor decides whether to forward the manuscript to 2-4 other scholars for their review or not.
When an editor decides not to forward a manuscript, this is called a “desk rejection”. These 2-3
reviewers will read the manuscript, comment on it, and suggest whether the manuscript should
be accepted for publication, revised and resubmitted for consideration, or rejected. Manuscripts
that are accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal are Journal Articles.
8
Figure 1-4: Visualization of the peer-review process
Journal Article Analysis consists of reading journal articles and analyzing them. You are
responsible for identifying twelve parts of a journal article: title, main point, question, puzzle,
debate, theory, hypotheses, research design, empirical analysis and methods, policy implications,
and contribution to the discipline, and future research. Journal Articles vary in their organization
and inclusion of these twelve parts. Increasingly, many articles explicitly describe all or most of
these parts; however, other articles may not state a part, or may omit it entirely. There is a
diversity of article authors, writing styles, and approaches to the discipline, this outline and
subsequent elaboration is just one of a multiple of frameworks for analyzing political science
research.
Journal Articles, especially in the field of political science, typically have twelve parts.
1. The Title of an article appears on the first page of the article. The Title is brief, typically
no more than 5-10 words, and identifies for the reader the subject of the article.
2. The Main Point of an article is typically found in the Abstract. An Abstract is a summary
of the article, which is located on the first page, after the Title. The main point may be in
the Introduction of the article.
3. The Question of an article is typically found in the Abstract. The question may be in the
Introduction of the article as well.
4. The Puzzle is a missing piece of knowledge that the article seeks to fulfill.
5. The Debate is how scholars currently argue the subject of the article. Debates have at
least two sides, and the two sides we are most familiar with are “pro” and “con”.
However, debates can be more complex.
6. The Theory is how the author thinks something works. For example, we may have a
theory about how campaigns influence voters. Theories consists of constants, variables,
and the relationships between variables.
7. The Hypotheses are derived from the Theory. A hypothesis is the expectation that one
variable affects another variable in a specific way.
8. The Research Design is how the author compares the effect of the explanatory variable
(X) on the outcome variable (O) in a group (G) or set of groups.
9. The Empirical Analysis is the use of quantitative or qualitative evidence to explore
whether the hypothesized relationship between two variables does indeed occur in the
world.
9
10. The Policy Implications are how the findings of the article should influence the behavior
of individuals, groups, organizations, or governments.
11. The Contribution to the Discipline is how the article helps fill the missing Puzzle piece
12. Future Research offers suggestions for future research that build on the findings from the
article.
With these twelve parts listed, let’s explore each of them in greater detail. The Title of an article
appears on the first page of the article. The Title is brief, typically no more than 5-10 words, and
identifies for the reader the subject of the article. Titles can be informative, as they may include
the primary independent variable, primary dependent variable, or question of the article.
The Main Point of an article is typically found in the Abstract. An Abstract is a summary of the
article, which is located on the first page, after the Title. The main point may be in the
Introduction of the article. Main points, while presented at the beginning of an article, are largely
derived after the political scientist has completed their research. So, keep in mind that political
scientists don’t regularly start with main points, typically, but rather the main point is a result of
their research process.
The Question of an article is typically found in the Abstract. The question may be in the
Introduction of the article, as well. An article can have more than one question. So, do not be
surprised if you find more than one question. Keeping a list of questions is a useful way to
eventually identify the primary question of the article, while also recognizing related secondary
questions.
Figure 1-5: Visualization of puzzle
10
The Puzzle is a missing piece of knowledge that the article seeks to fulfill. Puzzles are what
political scientists try to solve. To solve a puzzle, a political scientist needs to have a sense of
what the whole puzzle looks like. In other words, when you see the puzzle box and the image
you are trying to recreate, that’s a sense of the whole puzzle. Second, a political scientist needs to
know how the current pieces fit together. Imagine that the puzzle was partially complete, so we
would closely examine how the pieces that make up the partial puzzle are put together. Lastly, a
political scientist decides which pieces they want to add to the partially complete portion of the
puzzle. In other words, they need to decide which pieces they want to pick up and then try to
place them.
The Debate is how scholars currently argue the subject of the article. Debates have at least two
sides, and the two sides we are most familiar with are “pro” and “con”. However, debates can be
more complex. Debates in political science can be normative or positive debates. Normative
debates focus on “what should be” while positive debates focus on “what is.” Normative debates
are typical in the practice of politics. For example, in the U.S. House of Representatives,
members will debate policy issues using a range of philosophical and logical arguments. On the
other hand, most debates in political science are positive.
Positive debates can exist on a conceptual, operational, or measurement level. Conceptual

debates are were political scientists argue about a broad concept, like democracy or
representation or power. Operational debates focus on taking broad concepts, like democracy,
and arguing how they are represented in the real world. For example, many scholars would agree
that the United States is conceptually a democracy. However, some scholars would argue and
operationalize the United States as a representative democracy. Finally, measurement debates
focus on how an operationalized concept is measured. For example, how do we measure a
representative democracy? Are individuals elected to serve in national legislatures through
winner-take-all a representative democracy? Or are individuals elected to serve in national
legislatures through proportional representation a representative democracy?
The Theory is how the author thinks something works. For example, we may have a theory about
how campaigns influence voters. Theories consists of constants, variables, and the relationships
between variables. Theory is used by political scientists to clearly explain their logic of the
constants, variables, and relationships between variables. Constants are objects that do not
change. A reason for stating constants is that the world is complex, therefore it is important to
simplify it by “holding things constant.” In other words, stating constants lets us focus on the
variables and their relationship.
Variables are objects that do change. Variables are typically classified into three categories:
independent variable, mediating variable, and dependent variable. Independent variables are the
objects that “cause” something to happen. Mediating variables are objects that “help cause”
something to happen. And dependent variables are objects that are the “effect” of the “cause”
and/or “helping cause.” For example, your interpretation of a political actor, such as the
President, may be caused by an action the President took. But your view of the action is
mediated by your partisan affiliation.
11
The Hypotheses are derived from the Theory. A hypothesis is the expectation that one variable
effect another variable in a specific way. Above, I described a theory about how the action of a
political actors effects your interpretation of the political actors, given your partisan affiliation.
Now, we could generate several hypotheses from this theory. Hypothesis 1 is that if the President
takes no action, then you will have no interpretation of the President. Hypothesis 2 is that if the
President acts, then you will have a positive view of the President if you have the same partisan
affiliation as the President. Hypothesis 3 is that if the President acts, then you will have a
negative view of the President if you have a different partisan affiliation as the President.
The Research Design is how the author compares the effect of the explanatory variable (X) on
the outcome variable (O) in a group (G) or set of groups. Some political scientists use notation to
denote research design. Below are 4 common examples, and 2 complex examples:
● Example 1: G O. This is a single group, observation only.
● Example 2: G X O. This is a single group, treatment then observation.
● Example 3: G O X O. This is a single group, observation before treatment, the treatment,
then observation after treatment
● Example 4: G X O and G _ O. This is a two-group design. Group 1 receives them
treatment, then is observed. Group 2 does not receive the treatment, then observed.
● Example 5: G O X O and G O _ O. This a two-group design. Group 1 and Group 2 are
observed, then Group 1 receives the treatment while Group 2 does not receive the
treatment. Finally, both Groups are observed again.
● Example 6: G O X O _ O and G O _ O X O. This is a two-group design, known as a
switching replications design. Group 1 and Group 2 are observed, then Group 1 receives
the treatment, while Group 2 does not receive the treatment. Then both Groups are
observed. Next, Group 1 does not re-receive the treatment, and Group 2 receives the
treatment for the first time. Then both groups are observed again.
The Empirical Analysis is the use of quantitative or qualitative evidence to explore whether the
hypothesized relationship between two variables does indeed occur in the world. Empirical
analysis can feature quantitative, qualitative, or both types of evidence. Quantitative data is
numerical and often, but not always, organized via tools such as spreadsheets. Political scientists
using quantitative evidence conduct statistical analysis using statistical models to examine the
data contained in their spreadsheet. Qualitative evidence is typically individual or collection of
text, images, and audio in a paper or electronic document. Political scientists using qualitative
evidence conduct content analysis or interpretation using theoretical or non-theoretical
framework. Qualitative and quantitative evidence can be analyzed in the context of a theoretical
framework but also to uncover descriptive trends. For example, quantitative evidence can be
visualized into a scatter plot to help the researcher observe trends in the data. Likewise,
qualitative evidence, such as Congressional Record Statements, can be organized into categories
by researcher to see if there is a noticeable pattern.
The Policy Implications are how the findings of the article should influence the behavior of
individuals, groups, organizations, or governments. Policy implications are typically stated by
the political scientist towards the end of an article. What the researcher is doing is predicting
how their article, and its findings, would influence the behavior of individuals, groups,
organizations, or governments.
12
The Contribution to the Discipline is how the article helps fill the missing Puzzle piece.
Contribution to the Discipline is a statement of how the political scientists’ research helps add a
puzzle piece that was missing from our current world of knowledge.
Finally, Future Research is how the article offer suggestions for future research that build on the
findings from the article. Future research are suggestions for what another political scientist can
do to help build on this new knowledge that has been uncovered.
Section 1.5: Research Paper Project Management
Learning Objectives
● Remember the process of writing a research paper plan
● Create a research paper plan
A goal of an Introduction to Political Science Research Methods course is to prepare you to write
a well-developed research paper that you could reasonably consider submitting to a journal for
peer review. This may sound ambitious, since writing a publication-quality research paper is
typically reserved for faculty who already hold a doctoral degree or advanced graduate students.
However, the idea that a first or second-year student is not capable is a tradition in need of
change. Students, especially those enrolled at community colleges, have a wealth of lived
experiences and unique perspectives that, in many ways, are not permeating throughout the
current ranks of graduate students and faculty.
Writing a research paper should be viewed like managing a project that consists of workflows.
Workflows serve as a template for how you can take a large project (such as writing a Research
Paper) and disaggregate it into specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely tasks. This is
called “project management” because you are taking a “big” project, organizing it into “smaller”
projects, sequencing the smaller projects, completing the smaller projects, and then bringing all
the smaller projects together to demonstrate completion of the “big” project. In the real-world,
this is a valuable ability and skill to have.
We have all project managed; we just never call it that. For example, have you had a plan a
birthday party? Or maybe organize a family dinner? Or maybe write a research paper in high
school? The party, dinner, and researcher paper are all examples of projects. And you managed
these projects from beginning to end. The result of your efforts was a “great time” or “delicious
dinner” or “excellent work”. In other words, don’t underestimate your ability to successfully
manage a complex project.
The process of writing a political science research paper closely follows the process of analyzing
a journal article. A research paper consists of an introduction, body, and conclusion. The
13
introduction contains the title, the main point, question, and preview of the body. The body
includes the puzzle, debate, theory, hypothesis, research design, and empirical analysis. Finally,
the conclusion contains policy implications, contribution to the discipline, and future research.
Figure 1-6: Visualization of research paper parts
A crucial difference between analyzing a journal article and writing a research paper is a
literature review. When analyzing a journal article, you don’t search for a literature review.
Rather, you look for the outputs of a literature review process: puzzle, debate, and theory. A
literature review is your reading and analysis of anywhere from 10 to 100 journal articles and
books related to your research paper topic. This sounds like a lot, and it is. But don’t be
exasperated by the number of articles or books you must read, simply recognize that you need to
absorb existing knowledge to contribute new knowledge.
A literature review can serve as an obstacle for the first-time writer of a political science research
paper. The reason that such an obstacle is just the sheer amount of reading that one needs to
engage in in order to understand a topic. Now, we may have difficulty in reading because we
have a learning disability or deficit disorder. Or, reading can be challenging because we don’t
have access to the articles and books that help make up our understanding of a topic. The key is
not to get caught up in what we cannot do what we have trouble doing, but rather to focus on
what we can accomplish.
How can we conduct a literature review? First, we want to select a topic that we are interested in.
Now there’s a range of things in the world that we can explore. And because the world is
complicated, there is a lot that we can explore. But some straightforward advice is to research
something you care about. What is something from your personal experiences, or what you
observed in your family and community, or what you think society is grappling with, that you
care about? The answer to this question is what you should research.
After we selected a topic, we should search for more information by visiting our library, talking
with a librarian, meeting with our professor, and visiting reputable information sources online.
14
The campus library serves as a repository of information and knowledge. Librarians are trained
professionals who understand the science of information: what it is, how it’s organized, and how
we give it meaning. So, you can meet with the librarian and ask for their help to navigate in
person and online resources related to your topic. What a librarian may ask you, in addition to
your topic, is what your research question?
You may be asking what’s the difference between a question and a research question? Frankly,
one question has the adjective “research” in front of it. A question generally with the word: who,
what, when, where, why, and how. On the other hand, a research question typically starts with
why. A why question suggest that there are two things, also known as variables, that interact in a
way that is perplexing and intriguing to you. For example, why do some politicians tweet
profusely, and other politicians don’t even have a Twitter account? A secondary question is:
what causes a politician to utilize social media? Now the answers to these questions require some
research that something that you can do.
With your topic and research question in hand, you will be directed to books, journal articles,
and current event publications to learn more about your topic. Sifting through the mountains of
information that exist today is a skill. Honing this skill is a lifelong process because the
information environment is constantly changing. For your purposes in writing a research paper,
you should consult with your professor about what are reputable books, journals, and new
sources. In political science, university presses, the journals of national and regional associations,
and major news outlets all serve as reputable sources.
A go-to source for finding academic articles and books on a topic is Google Scholar. Unlike
Google search engine, which provides results from all over the World Wide Web, Google
Scholar is a search engine that limits results to academic articles and books. By narrowing the
results that are provided, Google scholar helps you cut through the noise that exist on the
Internet. For example, in my web browser I type in https://scholar.google.com/. In the search
box, I type “politics and twitter” and below the following results appear:
15
Figure 1-7: Output of Google Scholar search of “politics and twitter”
In this example, we see that there are over 1.2 million results. How do you decide on the 10, 20,
or 100 articles and books to read? One way to shorten your reading list is to see how many times
something has been cited. In the example above, we see that the article titled “What the
hashtag?” has been cited 460 times. If an article or book is cited in the hundreds, or thousands, of
times, then you should at its your reading list because it means that a lot of people are focused on
the topic, or the findings, or the argument that that object represents.
Writing a political science research paper is a generally nonlinear process. This means that you
can go from conducting a Literature Review, and jump to Policy Implications, and then update
your Empirical Analysis to account for some new information you read. Thus, the suggestion
below is not meant to be “the” process, but rather one of many creative processes that adapt to
your way of thinking, working, and being successful. However, while recognizing your
creativity, it is important to give order to the process. When you are taking a 10-week or 16-
week long course, you need to take a big project and break it up into smaller projects. Below is
an example of how you segment a research paper into its constituent parts over an 8-week
period.
16
Figure 1-8: Proposed 8-week timeline for preparing your research paper
Key Terms/Glossary
● Journal article: a peer-reviewed research paper that was typically written by researchers
who hold advanced degrees
● Journal: a collection of peer-review journal articles that is produced by a publishing
company
● Literature review: a process of collecting, reading, and synthesizing journal articles,
books, and other scholarly materials related to your research topic
● Peer-review: a process by which a research paper is evaluated by a journal editor and
researchers in the field who issue a judgement about whether the paper should be
accepted for publication, rejected for publication, or revised and resubmitted for
consideration.
Summary
Summary of Section 1.1: Welcome

This section welcomes you, the student, to the discipline of political science. The American
Political Science Association (APSA) is introduced. The purpose of this textbook is discussed.
This textbook is an Open Education Resource (OER) and licensed CC-BY-NC. This license
allows the content to be reused, remixed, and adapted, if attribution is provided, and it is for non-
commercial purposes.
17
Summary of Section 1.2: The Social Network of Political Science
The social network of political science consists of students, teachers, researchers, and
practitioners. Individuals interest within and between these groups to help create the political
science community. Additionally, the seven subfields of political science are declared: American
Government and Politics; Comparative Politics; International Relations; Political Theory;
Political Methodology; Public Policy; and Political Science Education.
Summary of Section 1.3: Organization of this Book

This section outlines the chapters of the book and their authors. Additionally, the structure of
each chapter is outlined and described. We invite faculty and students to provide feedback to
help us improve future editions of the book.
Summary of Section 1.4: Analyzing Journal Articles

Analyzing journal articles is a core skill that every political science student needs to master. Our
goal is to introduce this process in the 1st or 2nd year of a student’s collegiate experience, to
better prepare them for upper-division courses and later graduate level coursework. One model
for analyzing journal articles is described in brief and detail.
Summary of Section 1.5: Research Paper Project Management

Research paper project management helps you take a large project (writing a research paper) and
segmenting into smaller, more manageable tasks. This section describes a key process to writing
a research paper: conducting a Literature Review. A literature review consists of reading 10-100
journal articles and books to help you get a clearer sense of your topic so you can answer your
research question.
Review Questions
1. What does APSA stand for?
a. American Political Science Association
b. American Politics Studying Association
c. American Politics and Science Association
2. Which of the following is NOT a subfield of political science?
a. American government
b. Comparative Politics
c. International Relations
d. Political Theory
e. Logic
3. Which of the following is NOT one of the twelve parts of analyzing a journal article?
a. Theory
b. Hypotheses
18
c. Research Design
d. Empirical Analysis
e. Narrative
4. A journal article is not peer-reviewed. True or false?
a. True
b. False
5. Which of the following best defines a literature review?
a. a process of collecting, reading, and synthesizing journal articles, books, and
other scholarly materials related to your research topic
b. A process of quoting journal articles, but not books
c. A process of citing books, but not journal articles
d. a process of collecting, reading, and synthesizing journal articles, books, and
other scholarly materials
Critical Thinking Questions

1. Watch “Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students” by North Carolina
State University. What three points did you find most interesting about the video and
why?
a. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=t2d7y_r65HU
2. Why are the opportunities and challenges to analyzing a peer-review journal article?
3. Given that writing a research paper is a significant project, what are some of the
challenges you will need to overcome to successfully manage the project?
Suggestions for Further Study
Websites
1. Alwan, Ahmed. 2017a. “LibGuides: Literature Review How To: Home,” June.
https://libguides.csun.edu/literature-review.
2. Lyons, Ken. 2012. “Library Guides: Write a Literature Review: Home,” August.
https://guides.library.ucsc.edu/c.php?g=119714&p=780881.
3. Squibb, Sara Davidson. 2013. “LibGuides: Writing Literature Reviews: Literature
Reviews,” August. https://libguides.ucmerced.edu/lit_reviews.
4. Lancet, Yaara. 2014. “Paperpile Review: An Excellent Reference Manager You’ll Want
to Pay for.” PCWorld. March 4, 2014.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/2089100/paperpile-review-an-excellent-reference-
manager-youll-want-to-pay-for.html.
5. Wikipedia contributors. 2019. “Project Management.” Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia. November 28, 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_management&oldid=928334564.
19
Journal Articles
1. Knopf, Jeffrey W. 2006. “Doing a Literature Review.” PS, Political Science & Politics
39 (1): 127–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096506060264.
2. Snyder, Hannah. 2019. “Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview
and Guidelines.” Journal of Business Research 104 (November): 333–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039.
3. Wang, Huanming, Wei Xiong, Guangdong Wu, and Dajian Zhu. 2018. “Public–private
Partnership in Public Administration Discipline: A Literature Review.” Public
Management Review 20 (2): 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1313445.
Books
1. Fink, Arlene G. 2019. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to
Paper. Fifth edition. SAGE Publications, Inc.
2. Machi, Lawrence A., and Brenda T. McEvoy. 2012. The Literature Review: Six Steps to
Success. Second edition. Corwin.
3. Ridley, Diana. 2012. The Literature Review: A Step-By-Step Guide For Students (Sage
Study Skills Series). Second edition. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Contributor(s)
● 1st edition, 2020: Josh Franco, Ph.D.
○ Peer reviewers: Charlotte Lee, Ph.D, Kau Vue, M.A., M.P.A.
References
Broton, Katharine M., and Sara Goldrick-Rab. 2018. “Going Without: An Exploration of Food
and Housing Insecurity Among Undergraduates.” Educational Researcher 47 (2): 121–33.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17741303.
Dogan, Mattel. 1996. “The Hybridization of Social Science Knowledge.”
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/8090/library..?sequence=1.
Erel, Umut. 2018. “Saving and Reproducing the Nation: Struggles around Right-Wing Politics of
Social Reproduction, Gender and Race in Austerity Europe.” Women’s Studies International
Forum 68 (May): 173–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2017.11.003.
Frank, Malcolm, Paul Roehrig, and Ben Pring. 2017. What To Do When Machines Do
Everything: How to Get Ahead in a World of AI, Algorithms, Bots, and Big Data. John
Wiley & Sons. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=GYfZDQAAQBAJ.
Peters, Michael A. 2017. “Technological Unemployment: Educating for the Fourth Industrial
Revolution.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 49 (1): 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1177412.
20
21
Chapter 2 - History and Development of the
Empirical Study of Politics
Josh Franco, Ph.D. and Dino Bozonelos, Ph.D.
Chapter Outline
• Section 2.1: Brief History of the Empirical Study of Politics
• Section 2.2: The Institutional Wave
• Section 2.3: The Behavioral Wave
• Section 2.4: Currents: Qualitative versus Quantitative
• Section 2.5: Currents: Politics: Normative and Positive Views
• Section 2.6: Emerging Wave: Experimental Political Science
• Section 2.7: Emerging Wave: Big Data and Machine Learning
Section 2.1: Brief History of the Empirical Study of Politics
Learning Objectives
● Remember a brief history of the empirical study of politics
● Understand how each iteration of the study of politics influenced the following iteration
What is empirical study? Empirical study is research that seeks patterns and explanations for
general phenomena and specific cases (Powner 2014). For political science this means attempts
to explain various political phenomena, which could include understanding the behavior of
voters, or the foreign policy of a country. In the discipline of political science, we often say that
22
the empirical study of politics traces its roots to what is called the behavioral revolution of the
post-World War II era (more on that in Section 2.3).
It is not that empirical analysis did not occur at all before WWII, but that most of this inquiry
often centered on the study of institutions, often accompanied with praise, or with criticism for
these institutions. The institutions that were studied were of great importance: parliamentary
democracy (Mill 1910), military formation and strategy (von Clausewitz 1956), or of the
political-economic systems within countries (Smith 1937; Marx and Engels 1967). Their writings
and thoughts on how these institutions structure political, economic, and social interaction, are
still with us today and influence our understandings in both normative and positivist political
science (North 1991).
However, the major shift to studying the behavior of individuals themselves, and a
commensurate increase in the methods, has indelibly changed the field. Foremost, scholars could
become more “objective”, or less normative, in their study of human behavior. The goal was no
longer to provide evidence with moral arguments. Instead, this new political science would, as
Shively (2017) stated, be “concerned with ascertaining the facts needed to solve political
problems.” Through the introduction of formal theory, political scientists use facts as their
empirical foundation, or assumptions, and develop social theories that are generalizable to other
areas of study.
This new approach inevitably led to the importation of research methods from other disciplines,
such as economics and psychology. This set off an explosion of research into methodology and
their application to political questions, such as voting behavior and party formation. Discussions
on tradeoffs, alliances, and rationality were brought over from economics. In contrast, discourse
on media cues, opinion formation, the effect of societal prejudices, such as racial attitudes, were
brought in from sociology and psychology. Institutions were no longer the focus.
Section 2.2: The Institutional Wave
Learning Objectives
● Understand the importance of institutions in political science
● Compare old institutionalism to neoinstitutionalism
Why do you need to know about this?

Given the discussion above there have been two major waves in political science methodology.
The traditional methodological wave of research is that of institutionalism. Institutionalism
involves the study of institutions within a society. Indeed, Peters (2019) explains that political
science emerged from the study of history due to its almost exclusive focus on institutions. There
was a desire by philosophers to understand the governing mechanisms of society and private life.
23
Thus, political science became the study of how the government works, the study of laws and the
process of lawmaking. It also included normative discussions on how these institutions should be
structured and what best practices should be incorporated within the machinery of government.
North (1991) defines institutions as, “the humanly devised constraints that structure political,
economic, and social interaction”. In other words, institutions often reflect the bargains made
between actors in each society that determine how the rules of society should look like. A good
example is the Electoral College, an institution that most students grapple with understanding.
To best understand the Electoral College, one must accept that it was a compromise at the
Constitutional Convention. The smaller states, such as New Jersey, proposed that the President
be selected by the state legislators. They feared that a direct popular vote, which was favored by
New York & Virginia, would always be dominated by larger, more populous states. The Framers
of the Constitution compromised and came up with an institution that tried to solve this impasse -
Electors. The Electors would be chosen by the state legislatures, giving the smaller states what
they wanted. Whereas the total number of electors each state would be given would in large part
be dependent on the state’s population, thereby giving the larger states more Electors, and thus
satisfying their desire more influence.
At first, Electors were able to vote their conscience. Today, Electors must vote for the candidate
that their state citizens have voted for. In the end, what has developed is an institution where
citizens vote directly at the state level for a presidential candidate in November. Then in
December, the Electors gather in Washington, D.C. to tell each other how each of their states
voted. In today’s wired world, where election results are reported in near time, the process of
having an Electoral College (college means in Latin - a collection of individuals, or to gather) is
rather archaic. However, institutions are built to last as they represent the compromises made in a
society, compromises that sometimes are hard fought. In sum, institutions are about
perseverance. Rhodes et al (2008) referred to institutions as “dried cement” where “cement can
be uprooted when it has dried, but the effort to do so is substantial”.
The Electoral College is a good example of why political scientists study institutions. Institutions
live on, sometimes even past their expiration date. In other words, once institutions are
developed, deviation is uncommon and thus the actions and decisions made by institutional
leaders can be predictable. In addition, David (1994) discusses that institutions do not just
spontaneously appear. They are often the codification of preexisting socially established
“convention”, or the use of social norms for negotiations within a society. Thus, the high costs
associated with the formalization of social norms can help explain why institutions are long-
lasting.
Yet even though the importance of institutions is evident, the institutional wave in the political
science has ebbed and flowed over the discipline. As mentioned, institutionalism had its heyday
before the behavioral wave crashed onto the shores of the discipline in the 1950s. Peters (2019)
refers to this as “old” institutionalism, which is often considered atheoretical. By this we mean
that traditional institutionalism was not as interested in developing theories. Theories in political
24
science are defined as “some general, internally consistent statements that could explain
phenomena in a variety of settings” (Guy Peters 2019). A benefit of the behavioral revolution
was the shift in thinking towards theory development. The study of micro-level political behavior
allowed for such inferential statements to be made regarding individual behavior.
The behavioral wave almost washed out institutionalism in political science. However, the
tendency in behavioralism to reduce all collective behavior to individual behavior left many
researchers unfulfilled. Clearly, institutions must influence people’s behavior. Not every action
could be scaled down to individual desires or wants. If society remains organized, there will be
rules, norms and expectations of behavior. These structures exist in every society and will
prevent individuals from pursuing any activity that they want. We can say that their behavior has
been bounded, or that their decision-making process has been conditioned. The desire to bring
institutions back into the discussion on politics has been referred to as neoinstitutionalism.
Neoinstitutionalism has its roots in the 1980s and as a wave in political science has been gaining
force. The desire to explain the role of a country’s formal and informal institutions, such as the
military, voting regulations, criminal legal codes has inevitably led scholars to study the state.
Now, when students think of state, they think of the state of California, or the state of Nevada.
And if you do, you would be partially right. In political science, when we say state we mean the
centralized authority in a given area, also referred to as sovereignty (O’Neil 2017). The more
common word we use today to describe this centralized authority is country.
Yet even if you look at the name of the country this book is published in - the United States of
America (USA) - you will notice the word state. Each state, such as Texas, is effectively a
centralized authority in each area, with its own police forces, laws, and social programs. Thus,
the USA is really a union of independent countries that have come together to form a larger
political union. And indeed, much of the discussion at the Constitutional Convention was how
much power each state would retain vis-a-vis the newly created federal government. Then,
neoinstitutionalism is about ‘bringing the state back in” when discussing politics and political
behavior.
Section 2.3: The Behavioral Wave
Learning Objectives
● Recall what behavioralism is
● Explain the impacts behavioralism has on current students and scholars
The second wave in political science, which started in earnest after World War II, is the
behavioral wave. Behavioral political science, or behavioralism, is the study of political behavior
and emphasizes the use of surveys and statistics. As opposed to the institutional wave, which
focused on the nature, structure, processes, and outcomes of institutions, the behavioral wave is
25
centered on individuals, groups, and the general public and demanded the use of the scientific
method.
The godfather of behavioral political science was Charles Merriam, a professor at the University
of Chicago from 1900 to 1940 (“Guide to the Charles E. Merriam Papers 1893-1957” n.d.; Dahl
1961). During his four-decade career, Professor Merriam established a political science program
which trained a generation of behavioral political scientists, such as V.O. Key and Gabriel
Almond. In doing so, these graduate students left the University of Chicago for positions at
colleges and universities around the country, thereby helping spread this new wave in political
science known as the “Chicago School”.
Heaney and Hanesen (2006, 595), in describing the Chicago School, write: “The building of the
Chicago School reveals that the evolution of political science is about more than the advent of
ideas. It is also about how ideas are taken up by scholars on a faculty, taught to students in a
curriculum, and supported in their development by an infrastructure for inquiry. The efforts of
Charles Merriam gave a vision of a new science of politics a material life at the University of
Chicago.” With this in mind, it’s helpful to acknowledge that we, as students of the discipline
and budding political scientists, have a role to play when it comes to shaping the norms,
conventions, and trends in the field. In this case, Professor Merriam had a vision for what
political science ought to be.
How does the Chicago School affect students, like you, today? There are at least three ways that
the Chicago School influences the study of political science today. First, when you’re reading
journal articles or books, you’ll typically find the inclusion of data and statistical analyses. Data
and statistical analyses represent, in some fashion, the idea of rigorous science. Before the
behavioral wave, most research of politics focused on first-hand accounts, written constitutions
and laws, and the nature of government and its relationship to the people. However, after the
behavioral wave, researcher politics began to explore political actors and phenomenon in more
detailed ways.
For example, institutional political scientists would have been interested in how government
should operate. Behavioral political scientists would have been interested in how the government
is operating. Now there’s a slight distinction that I want to bring to your attention between these
two sentences. It’s the use of the word “should” versus the word “is”. When you ask what
“should be”, as explained in a later section, you bring in your assumptions, your values, and your
prescriptions for the way government should work. But, when you ask, “what is”, you’re still
making assumptions, but you are expected to leave your values and your prescriptions out of
your analysis. This is one way the Chicago school influences us today because it pushes us to
leave our personal biases at the door.
The second way the Chicago School influences political science today is that students at the
undergraduate and graduate level are expected to have some quantitative analysis training. For
example, for those who are declared political science majors, you’re aware that there is likely a
26
statistics requirement to earn your degree. You may be asking “why do I have to take statistics in
order to get a degree in political science?” Well, in some ways, you can thank the Chicago
School for this because they drove the use of statistics and political analysis and they argued that
it was an essential component of how to do the science of politics. Another way of putting this is,
if you were a student of politics at the turn of the 20th century, you would have studied the
classics like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, reading constitutions and laws and congressional
testimonies and reports, and elaborating on how democracy should work. But, at the turn of the
21st century, statistics and mathematical models are standard tools that all students are expected
to be acquainted with.
Finally, the third way the Chicago School shapes political science today is that there is an
underlying concern that political science cannot simply be and end unto itself. Political science
should inform the behaviors of individuals, groups, elected and appointed officials, and
governments and countries here at home and around the world. In other words, the Chicago
School didn’t overtake the discipline to the point where we no longer value questions of what
should be. While this may have never been the intention of Charles Merriam and his students, the
effect for some time was to push away from the normative view of what should be. But with any
good change in the discipline, there will always be pushback from those who feel that there is a
single way to conduct the work within the discipline.
Section 2.4: Currents: Qualitative versus Quantitative
Learning Objectives
● Understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative methods
● Recount the discourse surrounding the two methodological currents
● Review mixed-methods research
Along with the two major waves of institutionalism and behavioralism, there are two major
currents in political science: the qualitative methodological current and the quantitative
methodological current. Just like their ocean counterparts, these methodological currents help
determine how political scientists attempt to understand the world. And just like ocean currents
help to regulate and stabilize global climate patterns, quantitative and qualitative methods help
regulate and stabilize the scientific inquiry. Methods are simply the steps taken by social
scientists during their research. They are the techniques used to collect, construct, and consider
data. By using replicable methods, or research steps that can be duplicated by other scholars, this
allows political scientists to use the scientific method in their inquiries (this is discussed more in
Chapter Three: The Scientific Method)
Qualitative methods are defined by Flick (2018) as “research interested in analyzing the
subjective meaning or the social production of issues, events, or practices by collecting non-
standardized data and analyzing texts and images rather than numbers and statistics”. What this
27
means is that researchers try to solve puzzles in political science without using some type of
mathematical analysis or using a simple mathematical measurement, such as coding of text
and/or images. Quantitative methods are defined by Flick (2018) as “research interested in
frequencies and distributions of issues, events, or practices by collecting standardized data and
using numbers and statistics for analyzing them”. What this means is that political scientists
solve puzzles using mathematical analysis or mathematical measurement.
Shively (2017) more elegantly states that quantitative research is attentive to, “numerical
measures of things...to make mathematical statements about them. Whereas qualitative research
is “less concerned with measuring things numerically and tends to make verbal statements about
them.” Baglione (2018) more simply states that it comes down to the use of numbers versus the
use of words as the evidence used to draw conclusions. The obvious differences between the two
currents has led to a potential divide in the field of political science - those who use qualitative
methods, specialize in them, and prefer these approaches, such as ethnological research, case
study (or small-n), or archival work (Chapter Seven); and those who use quantitative methods
and develop and implement mathematical and statistical techniques, such as analyzes of datasets
and formal modeling (Chapter Eight).
As expected, the behavioral revolution created a wedge among political scientists. Qualitative
research scholars often scoffed at the opaqueness of mathematical techniques made ever more
complex by quantitative methodologists. They also bemoaned the lack of applicability of some
of these developments, often calling the papers, “math for math’s sake”. In response quantitative
scholars viewed traditional qualitative techniques, such as archival work as antiquated, or newer
techniques, such as interpretivism, as non-inferential, and thus of less use.
The clash of currents between qualitative and quantitative methodology reached its peak in the
1990s, when the book Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research
(DSI) came out in 1994. Written by Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba (1994),
DSI suggests that qualitative research would improve if they adopted some of the tools used by
quantitative scholars. These tools include better defining the research problem, identifying which
theories to draw hypotheses from, case selection, testing and retesting to further clarify the
theory. As expected quite a few qualitative scholars did not appreciate what they viewed as a
talking down to by notable scholars in the discipline. Though this was not the intent of DSI, as its
goal was to shrink the divide between the two currents. Nevertheless, this was not how it was
received.
The major countercurrent to DSI was the book edited by Henry E. Brady and David Collier
(2004), Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (RSI). In RSI, Brady and
Collier appreciate the effort by King, Keohane, and Verba (1994) to bridge the divide between
the two methodological currents. However, they are concerned that DSI overemphasizes the
importance of quantitative tools when designing qualitative research agendas. Charles Ragin
(2004), one of the contributors to the volume, contends that the key goal of qualitative research -
inference, is not much different from the goal of qualitative research - making sense of cases.
28
Both sets of scholars have the same objective, albeit with different means of getting there.
Additionally, contributing authors, such as Gerardo Munck (2004), detailed qualitative tools for
each step of the research process, focusing on case selection, measurement and data collections
and assessing causation.
A more critical countercurrent to DSI was the Perestroika movement in political science, where
qualitative scholars critiqued the dominance of quantitative methodology in the discipline,
including the elected leadership of the American Political Science Association (APSA). Calling
themselves an intellectual rebellion, the authors in their book Perestroika, push for a pluralistic
future of political science, where all methods are respected and treated fairly. Shapiro (2005)
comments that political science has become too method-driven, and instead should be more
problem-driven. And that if method selection drives the analysis, then it leads to what he calls
the “self-serving construction of problems”. Finally, the study of normative politics, and the
importance of narratives and discourse to contextualize the study of politics has substantive
value. Sacrificing substance at the altar of mathematics and statistics, Sanders (2005) argues is
shortsighted.
Has the clash of currents subsided? Not really. Qualitative scholars contend that the flagship
journal American Political Science Review (APSR) is still “hostile to qualitative concerns in the
discipline” (McGovern 2010). However, a newer current within the discipline has developed to
respond to the concerns of these scholars: the Qualitative and Multi-Method Research section of
APSA. The goals of this research section are to further discussion within quantitative
methodology and investigate how the various branches of methodology interact. Also referring
to the latter goal as mixed-methods research, Creswell and Clark (2017) describe it as research
involving both quantitative and qualitative data.
Quantitative data consists of closed-ended information. This can include interval or ratio scale
data (more on this in Chapter Eight), often asked in surveys. Whereas qualitative data includes
open-ended information that is often gathered through interviews or observation. Mixed-methods
research is simply the mixture of close-ended and open-ended techniques to triangulate the right
conclusions. Are mixed methods the future methodological current of political science? It is
premature to suggest that this is the case. Graduate students are still likely to specialize in a
methodological current. However, what is sure is that the current of quantitative methodological
supremacy has receded enough to allow other currents to reach the shore.
Section 2.5: Currents: Normative and Positive Views
Learning Objectives
● Remember the difference between normative view and positive view of politics
● Understand politics from both views
29
The history and development of the empirical study of politics can be rooted in the debate
between “what should be” versus “what is”. When individuals, including political scientists, ask
“what should be?” they are asking a normative question. On the other hand, when individuals
ask, “what is?” they are asking a positive question.
For example, a national government expends resources. These resources can be expended
domestically or internationally. Domestic spending includes constructing infrastructure, like
roads and bridges, and paying for public employees to work, like engineers and construction
workers who design and build infrastructure. International spending includes foreign aid to
governmental or non-governmental entities. When individuals, including political scientists, ask
“what should be?” they are asking a normative question. On the other hand, when individuals
ask, “what is?” they are asking a positive question. For example, who is paying membership dues
to an international organization, providing aid to foreign governments, or supporting non-profit
organizations working in foreign countries?
Now, let’s assume a national government spends 100% of its resources domestically. From a
positive view, “what is” is that the government is spending all its resources domestically and
none of its resources overseas. A positive view could expand by staying how much is spent on
infrastructure versus salaries, say 75% for infrastructure and 25% for salaries. However, a
positive view would not argue that 100% should not be spent on domestic priorities, or that the
split in allocating between infrastructure versus salaries should be different.
On the other hand, a normative view, “what should be”, would argue that less than 100% should
be spent on domestic priorities, while a percentage greater than 0% should be spent on foreign
priorities. Now, let’s assume that the government changes its expenditures so that its 90%
domestic and 10% foreign. With 10% allocated to overseas efforts, a normative view would
argue that some portion of the 10% should go towards membership dues while the remainder
should go to providing aid to foreign governments.
30
Positive
D: 100%
F: 0%
Status Quo
D: 100%
F: 0%
Normative
D: 90%
F: 10%
Figure 2-1: Visual comparison of positive view and normative view.
Why differentiate between positive and normative perspectives? When reading a journal article,
book, or news article, we generally expect there to be a focus on what is and not on what should
be. On the other hand, when we read a newspaper editorial or watch a television program, we
would expect to see and hear opinions and speculations. Our ability to discern between fact and
opinion is essential to engaging in political science. Politics, by its nature, is strewn with
opinions from individuals, organizations, and leaders. However, an opinion shouldn’t stand for
fact and should not replace an objective reality. Therefore, the ability to acknowledge, identify,
and categorize information helps us build our understanding of the world around us.
Section 2.6: Emerging Wave: Experimental Political Science
Learning Objectives
● Comprehend the role of experiments in political science
● Understand the reluctance of political scientists to embrace experimentation
An emerging wave of methodology in the discipline is that of experimental political science. The
value of this method has increased in the past few decades as true experimentation can establish
causality, or to definitively say that variable X causes variable Y. This is also referred to a causal
relationship, or a causal mechanism. In other methods of political science, such as a quantitative
analysis of data sets, research generally leads only to correlational relationships, which are much
weaker than causal relationships. In correlational relationships, one can only show that there is a
relationship between two or more variables. And just because a relationship exists between
31
variables does not mean that additional relationships exist between the variables that could
provide alternative explanations. Hatcher (2013) accepts that there may be an “observed
correlation that differs from the research hypothesis”.
Out of the desire to provide stronger evidence for cause and effect, political scientists have begun
using experimental methods. Experiments are understood by McDermott (2002) to “refer
primarily to laboratory studies in which investigators retain control over the recruitment,
assignment to random conditions, treatment, and measurement of subjects”. McDermott points
out that experiments diminish the effect of bias as it focuses on standardization in the research
process. Thus, by having exact procedures, measures, and analyses, researchers can manipulate a
variable of interest, repeat the experiment among many subjects, providing for strong internal
validity. The standardization of the techniques allows for the replication of the experiment by
other scholars, and thus provides for a measure of external validity (more on this below). This
then allowed the researchers to draw causal inferences.
Experimental political science has become popular in political psychology and in understanding
voter behavior. It has not yet caught on in the overall discipline. Even though experimentalism is
part of the behavioral wave, there is a concern regarding the overall external validity and the
ability to generalize beyond the studied population. While manipulation of a variable may show
a statistical effect in an experiment with students, will it have the same effect with the larger
population? McDermott (2002) posits that political scientists are being too critical and failing to
understand that experimentalists do not make larger claims about human behavior from limited
study. They understand that external validity is made over time, with quite a bit of replication. In
addition, experiments are intended to test theories and build hypotheses, not generate broader
conclusions.
Additionally, a peer-review journal, the Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS), was
founded in 2014 to help foster additional interest and research using experimental and quasi-
experimental methods. The editors of JEPS explain (Mann et. al) that they define “experimental
methods broadly: research featuring random or quasi-random assignment of subjects to different
treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all
of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including
survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field,
natural and neurological experiments.”
Section 2.7: Emerging Wave: Big Data and Machine Learning
Learning Objectives
● Define big data and machine learning
● Explaining how big data and machine learning are being used in political science
32
Political science is a dynamic discipline because it is willing to borrow from other disciplines to
improve its study of political actors, institutions, and processes. There are a couple of emerging
waves that are changing the nature of scientific inquiry and of political science. Two waves that
we want to highlight here are big data and machine learning.
The human mind is not capable of sifting, sorting, and analyzing these growing datasets, but
computers are. It is useful to note that up until the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers had to
calculate descriptive statistics and linear regressions by hand and with calculators. But over the
last 20 years, technology has become widely available and access to software has increased.
With both the hardware and software in the hands of more political scientists, we increase the
range of exploration and knowledge generation that comes with analyzing political phenomena.
Big data is defined as the mountain of information, in the form of petabytes and exabytes, that is
being stored on computers and servers around the world. As computers proliferate, and our use
of them for personal, organizational, corporate, and governmental use grows exponentially, the
amount of information we are generating as a human society is exploding by leaps and bounds
every single day. And there are concerns about what this means for society (Brady 2019). With
growing mountains of data, some questions arise: How can we study it? How can we uncover
patterns in the data? How can we derive new meanings and understandings from these data?
Big Data is “big” because the amount of space it takes on a computer hard drive, but the
techniques to analyze “Big Data” are available in computer programs political scientists have
used for years to statistically analyze large data sets. SPSS, Stata, R, and Python are all staples of
statistical data analysis software in the discipline.
But, within the last decade, two major changes are revolutionizing the study of everything, from
politics and economics to biology and chemistry. First, we have seen significant advances in
computer hardware technology. Specifically, the advances in graphic processing units also
known as GPUs have fundamentally changed our ability to analyze mountains of data. The short
of the long is that computer processing units or CPUs have shrunk in size but have grown in
computational power. Why do you think you can hold a computer in the palm of your hand?
GPUs, working independently and in conjunction with CPUs, have tremendous computational
power.
Second, computer scientists have been developing new programming languages, mechanisms for
programming collaboration, and pushing the boundaries of artificial intelligence. This is where
our second wave of machine learning starts to emerge. As computer science has pushed the
boundaries of software, given the advancements in CPUs and GPUs, it is pushing the boundaries
of what software can do with respect to inputting, analyzing, and learning from data in the world
around us. Machine learning is the ability of a computer program to start with an initial model
data, analyze actual data, learn from this analysis, and automatically update that initial model to
incorporate the findings from its analysis. Now, this doesn’t just happen once in the computer
33
software is done, this cycle can happen iteratively thereby allowing the software to uncover
categories, patterns, and meanings.
What does this all mean for political science? Honestly, we don’t have an answer to that
question. What we do know is that the next generation of political scientists will be leading
efforts to utilize big data and machine learning to explain political behaviors, institutions, and
processes. It’s an exciting time to be entering the field and the experiences you have, the
questions that intrigue you, and the research will conduct will help build our knowledge of
politics.
Key Terms/Glossary
● Behavioralism: is the study of political behavior and emphasizes the use of surveys and
statistics
● Big data: the mountain of information, in the form of petabytes and exabytes, that is
being stored on computers and servers around the world
● Chicago School: started by Dr. Charles Merriam, a professor at the University of
Chicago from 1900 to 1940, that focused on the study of political behavior using surveys
and statistics
● Empiricism: is research that seeks patterns and explanations for general phenomena and
specific cases
● Experiments: laboratory studies in which researchers recruit subjects, randomly assign
subjects to a treatment or control condition, and then determine the effect of the treatment
on the subjects
● Institutionalism: the study of political institutions
● Machine learning: the ability of a computer program to start with an initial model data,
analyze actual data, learn from this analysis, and automatically update that initial model
to incorporate the findings from its analysis
● Mixed Methods: the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis
● Normative view: the view of what should or ought to be, accounting for personal bias
and opinion
● Positive view: the view of what is, regardless of personal bias or opinion
● Qualitative: typically, the use of interviews, archival research, and ethnographies to
understand politics
● Quantitative: generally, the use of mathematical models and statistics to measure a
relationship between two variables
34
Summary
Summary of Section 2.1: Brief History of Empirical Study of Politics

Empiricism is research that seeks patterns and explanations for general phenomena and specific
cases. Empirical political science has its roots in the study of institutions. However, it took off
methodologically with the behavioral wave in the 1950s. This was a shift to the study of human
behavior, such as voting patterns.
Summary of Section 2.2: The Institutional Wave

The traditional wave of methodology in political science is institutionalism, or the study of
institutions in a society. Institutions often reflect the bargains made between actors in each
society that determine how the rules of society should look like, which is why they are difficult
to reform, replace, or dismantle. Institutionalism ebbed during the heyday of the behavioral
revolution. However, the desire to bring institutions back has led to the development of
neoinstitutionalism, with a focus on the role of the state in society and the economy.
Summary of Section 2.3: The Behavioral Wave

Behavioralism is the study of political behavior and emphasizes the use of surveys and statistics.
Charles Merriam at the University of Chicago had an outsized influence on behavioralism. The
“Chicago School” has strongly influenced political science, through its emphasis on quantitative
methodology, often at the expense of normative questions. Many incoming scholars are expected
to understand statistical techniques for use in their research. In response, some scholars are
looking to bring back the normative discussion.
Summary of Section 2.4: Currents: Qualitative versus Quantitative

There are two major currents in political science: the qualitative methodological and quantitative
methodological currents. Methods are simply the steps taken by social scientists during their
research. They are the techniques used to collect, construct, and consider data. Qualitative
methods solve puzzles in political science without using some type of mathematical analysis.
Whereas, quantitative methods prefer the use of mathematical analysis or measurement. The
behavioral revolution created a wedge among political scientists, which has led to a strong back
and forth discourse on the value of qualitative methodology in political science. More recent
scholars using multi-method approaches, combining qualitative and quantitative techniques.
Summary of Section 2.5: Currents: Politics: Normative and Positive Views

The normative view of political science explores what should be, while the positive view
explains what is. These views are important to recognize, since both have their supporters and
detractors. As a student of political science, it is useful to be able to identify both views. And it is
up to you when, how, and why you use one view, or another, or even both, to explore, explain
and analyze political actors, behaviors, institutions, and processes.
35
Summary of Section 2.6: Emerging Wave: Experimental Political Science
Experimental political science is growing in the discipline. It centers on the researcher using
random assignment in laboratory settings or quasi-random assignment in other settings, to
explore precise cause-and-effect relationships between a treatment and outcome of interest.
Summary of Section 2.7: Emerging Wave: Big Data and Machine Learning
The emerging waves of Big Data and machine learning are just beginning to influence political
science. Big Data is the growing mountain of data being generated by political actors and
institutions. And machine learning is the increasingly sophisticated way of sifting, sorting, and
identifying patterns in these mountains of data.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following definitions best describes institutionalism?
a. Institutionalism involves the study of institutions within a society
b. Institutionalism involves the study of behavior of political actors within
institutions
c. Institutionalism involves the study of the interaction between political institutions
2. Which of the following definitions best describes behavioralism?
a. Behavioral political science is the study of political behavior and emphasizes the
use of surveys and statistics
b. Behavioral political science is the study of political behavior and emphasizes
behavior within institutions
c. Behavioral political science is the study of political behavior
3. Which of the following views is institutionalism most associated with?
a. Normative
b. Positive
c. Negative
d. Neutral
4. It is useful to note that up until the late 1970s and early 1980s, researchers had to
calculate descriptive statistics and linear regressions by hand and with calculators.
a. True
b. False
5. Machine learning is the ability of a computer program to start with an initial model data,
analyze actual data, learn from this analysis, and automatically update that initial model
to incorporate the findings from its analysis
a. True
b. False
36
1. Why is knowing part of the history of political science important for students and
scholars today?
2. Compare and contrast normative view versus positive view.
3. How are the institutional wave with the behavioral wave in political science the same?
How are they different? Which wave do you find most appealing? Why?
Websites
● “Gabriel A. Almond, Preeminent Political Scientist, Dies at 91: 1/03.” n.d. Accessed
December 6, 2019. https://news.stanford.edu/pr/03/almondrelease.html.
● “Guide to the Charles E. Merriam Papers 1893-1957.” n.d. Accessed December 6, 2019.
https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/findingaids/view.php?eadid=ICU.SPCL.MERRIAM
CE.
● “V. O. Key Personal Papers | JFK Library.” n.d. Accessed December 6, 2019.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/VOKPP.
Journal Articles
● Bond, Jon R. 2007. “The Scientification of the Study of Politics: Some Observations on
the Behavioral Evolution in Political Science.” The Journal of Politics 69 (4): 897–907.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00597.x.
● Heaney, Michael T., and John Mark Hansen. 2006. “Building the Chicago School.” The
American Political Science Review 100 (4): 589–96.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055406062460.
● Dahl, Robert A. 1961. “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a
Monument to a Successful Protest.” The American Political Science Review 55 (4): 763–
72. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-
review/article/behavioral-approach-in-political-science-epitaph-for-a-monument-to-a-
successful-protest/F3C1ECC1F1A9CE408DDC565B4F3E980C.
● North, Douglass C. “Institutions.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (1): 97-122
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1942704?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Books
● Farr, James, and Raymond Seidelman. 1993. Discipline and History: Political Science in
the United States. University of Michigan Press.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=e9_jbbroRHsC.
37
● King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry:
Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=A7VFF-JR3b8C.
● Brady, Henry E., and David Collier. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools,
Shared Standards. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=OQO_AAAAQBAJ.
Contributor(s)
● 1st edition, 2020: Josh Franco, Ph.D., Dino Bozonelos, Ph.D.
○ Peer reviewers: TBD
References
Baglione, Lisa A. 2018. Writing a Research Paper in Political Science: A Practical Guide to
Inquiry, Structure, and Methods. CQ Press.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=byh_DwAAQBAJ.
Brady, Henry E. 2019. “The Challenge of Big Data and Data Science.” Annual Review of
Political Science, May. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-090216-023229.
Brady, Henry E., and David Collier. 2004. “Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools.” Shared
Standards 330.
Clausewitz, Carl von. 1956. On War. Jazzybee Verlag.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ceI6DwAAQBAJ.
Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2017. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Research. SAGE Publications.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=BXEzDwAAQBAJ.
Dahl, Robert A. 1961. “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument
to a Successful Protest.” The American Political Science Review 55 (4): 763–72.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-
David, Paul A. 1994. “Why Are Institutions the ‘carriers of History’?: Path Dependence and the
Evolution of Conventions, Organizations and Institutions.” Structural Change and
Economic Dynamics 5 (2): 205–20.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0954349X94900027.
Flick, Uwe. 2018. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage Publications Limited.
http://dspace.utamu.ac.ug:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/172/LIVRO_Uwe%20Fl
ick%20-%20An_Introduction_To_Qualitative_Research.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
“Guide to the Charles E. Merriam Papers 1893-1957.” n.d. Accessed December 6, 2019.
https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/findingaids/view.php?eadid=ICU.SPCL.MERRIAMCE
Guy Peters, B. 2019. Institutional Theory in Political Science, Fourth Edition: The New
Institutionalism. Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=qY6ODwAAQBAJ.
Hatcher, Larry. 2013. Advanced Statistics in Research: Reading, Understanding, and Writing up
38
Data Analysis Results. Shadow Finch Media, LLC.
Heaney, Michael T., and John Mark Hansen. 2006. “Building the Chicago School.” The
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055406062460.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific
Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press.
Mann, Christopher B., Max Schaub, Johanna Gereke, Delia Baldassarri, Matthew Rhodes-Purdy,
Rachel Navarre, Stephen M. Utych, et al. n.d. “Journal of Experimental Political Science |
Cambridge Core.” Cambridge Core. Accessed December 15, 2019.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1967. “The Communist Manifesto. 1848.” Trans. Samuel
Moore. London: Penguin.
http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/368/368CommunistManifestoPtItable.pdf.
McDermott, R. 2002. “Experimental Methods in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political
Science. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.polisci.5.091001.170657.
McDermott, Rose. n.d. “Experimental Methodology in Political Science.” Political Analysis: An
Annual Publication of the Methodology Section of the American Political Science
Association 10 (4): 325–42. Accessed December 14, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/10.4.325.
McGovern, Patrick J. 2010. “Perestroika in Political Science: Past, Present, and Future: Editor’s
Introduction.” PS, Political Science & Politics 43 (4): 725–27.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096510001307.
Mill, John Stuart. 1910. “Utilitarianism, Liberty, Representative Government (London.” Dent,
Contemporary Dentistry 319.
Monroe, Kristen Renwick. 2005. Perestroika!: The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. Yale
University Press. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=veelUVVHg8MC.
North, Douglass C. 1991. “Institutions.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives: A Journal of the
American Economic Association 5 (1): 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.97.
O’Neil, Patrick H. 2017. Essentials of Comparative Politics. W. W. Norton.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=2lZUswEACAAJ.
Powner, Leanne C. 2014. Empirical Research and Writing: A Political Science Student’s
Practical Guide. CQ Press.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=a1IvBQAAQBAJ.
Rhodes, R. A. W., Sarah A. Binder, and Bert A. Rockman. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of
Political Institutions. OUP Oxford.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=vjQ_AwAAQBAJ.
Shively, W. Phillips. 2017. The Craft of Political Research. Routledge.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315269559.
Smith, Adam. 1937. “The Wealth of Nations [1776].” na.
https://mi01000971.schoolwires.net/cms/lib05/MI01000971/Centricity/Domain/440/Primary
%20Source%20Articles%20Smith%20and%20Marx.pdf.
39
Chapter 3 - The Scientific Method
Josh Franco, Ph.D. and Kau Vue, M.A., M.P.A.
Chapter Outline
• Section 3.1: Philosophy of Science
• Section 3.2: What is the Scientific Method?
• Section 3.3: Applying the Scientific Method to Political Phenomena
Section 3.1: Philosophy of Science
Learning Objectives
● Remember what is the “philosophy of science”
● Understand how paradigms rise and fall
Before exploring the scientific method in detail, it is important to recognize the concept of
science itself. Science is the systematic study of the world around and beyond us. Part of
engaging in political science research is to acknowledge the underlying concepts of politics and
science being brought together in a coherent field of study for students at colleges and
universities throughout the world. In this chapter, we explore: the philosophy of science; three
models of the scientific method; and three applications of these scientific method models.
40
Philosophy of Science
Before conducting research in any field, including political science, it’s important to step back to
recognize that the field is trying to contribute to our human understanding of the world around
us. Whenever we question what we are doing, how we are doing it, and why we are doing it, then
we are engaging in the process of philosophizing. The philosophy of science (Wikipedia
contributors 2019) is the exploration of science by asking at least three questions: What are the
foundations of science? What are the methods of science? And what are the implications of
science? Among the mountain of contributors to the philosophy of science, we want to recognize
Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.
Karl Popper (Thornton 2019) is known for the concept of falsification. Falsification is the
principle that any theory, or explanation of how the world works, can always be proven false and
that a theory can never be proven true. This idea is important in political science for two reasons.
First, it allows political scientists and students to engage in a continuous debate about the
research, the findings, and the conclusions. This means the debate will always continue. And
while some debates may be settled, falsification means that new research can unsettle it, thereby
sparking a new wave of research, findings, and conclusions. Second, falsification in political
science prevents its community members from closing off possibilities for future research. This
is important because it essentially requires scientists and students to keep an open mind about the
possibility of new information changing their understanding of politics. As we strive to
continually understand the political world, we need to be open to new information.
Thomas Kuhn (Bird 2018) is known for the concept of paradigm shift. A paradigm is the current
way of thinking, doing, and understanding. A shift occurs when the current ways undergo a
significant change, thereby changing how we think, do, and understand. Paradigm shifts are a
part of any discipline, including political science. In political science, paradigms serve as a stable
framework in which to think about politics, do research of politics, and understand politics. This
stability is undergirded by faculty who teach and train an understanding of politics. And while
stability contributes to the process of accumulating knowledge, it doesn’t mean it’s the right way
or only way. Sometimes paradigms shift, thereby uncovering new ways to think about, do
research, and understand politics. One way paradigms shift is by having new, unconventional,
and non-traditional students become political scientists who will ask different questions,
challenge existing research, and produce new research.
The philosophy of science helps us recognize that we are exploring the foundations, methods,
and implications of science. Our exploration helps us uncover ideas and meanings that contribute
to our personal understanding of science. And beyond our individualized knowledge, we can
begin to contribute to our collective understanding by asking questions, challenging existing
methods, and articulating new impacts of science on people, communities, and societies more
generally.
41
Section 3.2: What is the Scientific Method?
Learning Objectives
● Remember the stages of the scientific method
The scientific method is a process used by individuals, particularly scientists, to analyze some
aspect of the world. We offer three models of the scientific method that start from simple to
complex. The reason for presenting three models is to demonstrate how we can start with a core
concept and extend it.
D T
Figure 3-1: Visualization of a simple model of scientific method
Model 1: Observation-Theory-Data: Our first model focuses on the core components of the
scientific method: observation, theory, and data. The scientific method first begins with
observations of the world around us, a response to stimuli. Stimuli are objects that attract our
attention. For example, as we walk towards the beach from the parking lot, we may see a lot of
beachgoers eagerly staring into the ocean. The behavior of the crowd is a stimulus because it
draws our attention. Our response to this stimulus is to consider why the beachgoers are acting
this way. Thus, our observations may lead to questions. Are there surfers in the water? Did
someone spot a school of dolphins or a shark? Is someone in need of help or is the Coast Guard
conducting a rescue operation? In order to understand the stimulus or our response, we must
make connections between two variables.
42
The connections that we make form the foundation of a theory, or the answer to our questions. In
other words, a theory is an explanation of the relationship we observed between two variables.
For example, we may observe a tweet about foreign policy from the President of the United
States. Shortly after, we may see an increase in the stock prices of aerospace companies. So, we
form a theory about presidential statements and the economy, connecting these two variables
with one another. With our theory in mind, we can proceed to explore it by collecting data.
Continuing with our example, we may collect data of presidential tweets and stock market prices
for the first two years of the presidency to see what the relationship is between these two
variables.
D T
H
Figure 3-2: Visualization of an intermediate model of scientific method
Model 2: Observation-Theory-Hypothesis-Data: Our second model builds on the previous

model by adding a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a statement that asserts the direction of the
relationship between two variables. Hypothesis follows theory because a theory proposes that
there is a relationship between two variables, while a hypothesis states what the relationship is.
For example, we may observe that voters seem supportive of a challenger to the incumbent
president. So, why are voters eagerly supporting a would-be president instead of the actual
president? It could be that voters feel the country is not going in the right direction, so they
believe a change in presidential leadership will put the country in the right direction. Thus, we
have a theory of presidential leadership and voter behavior. A hypothesis that follows from the
theory could be: if incumbent presidential leadership is erratic, then voters are more likely to
vote for the challenger in the upcoming presidential election. To examine this hypothesis, we
43
would collect data on the erraticism of the incumbent president and data on the votes cast in the
election.
O
U T
A H
D
Figure 3-3: Visualization of a complex model of scientific method
Model 3: Observation-Theory-Hypothesis-Data-Analysis-Update: Our third model continues

to build on the previous models by adding analysis and update. Analysis is an examination of the
collected data. We can analyze data using methods that are appropriate for the data collected.
Two principal methods of data analysis are qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative data analysis
is explored in Chapter 7 and quantitative data analysis is examined in Chapter 8.
The process consists of six stages: observe, articulate theory, propose hypotheses, collect data,
analyze data with respect to hypotheses, and revise theory based on findings.
Observe is the first stage of the scientific method. By observing individuals, organizations, and
institutions interacting in the real world, we begin to learn about the nature of their interests and
the degree of their interaction. For example, say it is the holiday season, and I observe how my
partisan identification differs from my parents. I could discuss this observation with my parents
but avoid the conversation because it may ruffle some feathers at the holiday dinner table. So
instead, I ask myself “Why?”
By asking myself “Why?”, this leads to the second stage of the scientific method: articulate a
theory. Recall that a theory is an explanation of how one variable has a relationship with another
variable. Using my observation from above, I have one variable: partisan identification. Now,
what is the other variable that can help us articulate a theory? Here, there can be a multitude of
44
reasons, but I could theorize that partisan identification is a function of technology use. So, I
have articulated a theory that technology use has a relationship with partisan identification.
After the articulation of the theory, the next step in this process is to develop a hypothesis.
Again, I theorized a relationship between technology use and partisan identification. A potential
hypothesis derived from this theory is that an increased use of technology is likely to affect what
political party individuals identify with.
The next step in this process will be to find identify and collect the appropriate data I will need to
help me test my hypothesis. One way to do this might be to interview people about their use of
technology, how often they use it. For the second variable, I would ask a question about what
party they identify with. Another way to collect the data I need is to find already existing datasets
that have collected this information. After collecting this information, I can then analyze the data
to see if there is an empirical relationship that exists between technology use and partisan
identification.
After analyzing the data, multiple outcomes can be possible. I might find that partisan
identification is linked to the use of technology, and I would be able to conclude that the
evidence does support my theory. On the other hand, it is also possible that I do not find a
relationship between the two variables and the evidence does not support my theory. This next
step would then require me to update my theory or my hypothesis, leading me to restart the cycle
again.
There are multiple stages to the scientific model. Individuals form questions and answers to
those questions by first observing the world around them. Derived from the answer is the
hypothesis, which will then allow individuals to test their theory. Providing evidence of the
theory may require collecting data and analyzing the data. While there are multiple stages, it is
possible that not all researchers will partake in each stage; thus, the presentation of multiple
models of the scientific method from the simple to more complex.
Section 3.3: Applying the Scientific Method to Political

Phenomena
Learning Objectives
● Apply the scientific method to open access journal articles
45
Applying the scientific method to political phenomena is what you, as a student in a political
science research methods, will be doing in the course. Political scientists, especially those who
conduct research, utilize the scientific method. Not all political scientists use all aspects of the
scientific method all of the time. Many times, a political scientist is focused on the “observation”
stage of the process. This means a researcher is trying to learn more by directly observing,
participating and observing, or indirectly observing through others. Other times, a political
scientist is focused on the “analysis” stage. This means a researcher is focused on refining the
tools used to empirically analyze political phenomena.
Let’s explore how we can map the stages of the complex model of the scientific method to three
open access journal articles. The purpose of this mapping is to demonstrate how the research
political scientists publish relates to the scientific method.
Journal Article #1
The first article we will map is titled “Do Inheritance Customs Affect Political and Social
Inequality?” (Hager and Hilbig 2019) by Anselm Hager and Hanno Hilbig in the American
Journal of Political Science. Remember that our third model of the scientific method includes six
stages: Observation, Theory, Hypothesis, Data, Analysis, and Update. Every peer-reviewed
journal article has a Title and Abstract. An abstract is a summary of the article’s contents. Below
is the title and abstract.
Do Inheritance Customs Affect Political and Social Inequality?
Abstract
Why are some societies more unequal than others? The French revolutionaries
believed unequal inheritances among siblings to be responsible for the strict
hierarchies of the ancient régime. To achieve equality, the revolutionaries therefore
enforced equal inheritance rights. Their goal was to empower women and to
46
disenfranchise the noble class. But do equal inheritances succeed in leveling the
societal playing field? We study Germany—a country with pronounced local‐level
variation in inheritance customs—and find that municipalities that historically
equally apportioned wealth, to this day, elect more women into political councils
and have fewer aristocrats in the social elite. Using historic data, we point to two
mechanisms: wealth equality and pro‐egalitarian preferences. In a final step, we
also show that, counterintuitively, equitable inheritance customs positively predict
income inequality. We interpret this finding to mean that equitable inheritances
level the playing field by rewarding talent, not status.
The title is presented as a question: Do Inheritance Customs Affect Political and Social
Inequality? Titles as questions are informative because they typically include some aspect of the
observation, theory, or hypothesis. In this case, we can see elements of a theory and hypothesis.
For example, a theory of inheritance customs and social inequality could be declared from the
title. And the hypothesis can be whether or not such customs influence inequality. So, we have
mapped 2 of the 6 stages of the scientific method using just the title.
Moving to the abstract, we are searching for the 4 other stages: observation, data, analysis, and
update. In search for observation, we know that they have a theory of inheritance customs and
social inequality, but what entity or groups are they observing? In this case, the abstract asks:
“Why are some societies more unequal than others?” In a general sense, the authors are
observing societies. If we read further, we find the following sentence: “We study Germany—a
country with pronounced local‐level variation in inheritance customs—and find that
municipalities that historically equally apportioned wealth, to this day, elect more women into
political councils and have fewer aristocrats in the social elite.” So while the authors are
generally interested in societies, they specifically focus on municipalities in Germany.
With observation set, there are three more stages to identify. In the abstract, there is a sentence
that clearly mentions data: “Using historic data, we point to two mechanisms: wealth equality
and pro‐egalitarian preferences”. While we don’t have specifics of the historic data, we can learn
more about it later in the article. Finally, in reading the remainder of the abstract, nothing
appears clearly as the analysis or update. Therefore, at this point, we would need to read through
the article to identify these last two components.
Journal Article #2
The second article we will map is titled “When Diversity Works: The Effects of Coalition
Composition on the Success of Lobbying Coalitions” (Junk 2019) by Wiebke Marie Junk which
was also published in the American Journal of Political Science. Unlike the prior article, I have
numbered each sentence by including square brackets [ ] with a number inside. This will help us
read through the abstract more carefully.
When Diversity Works: The Effects of Coalition Composition on the Success of

Lobbying Coalitions
47
Abstract
[1] Lobbyists frequently join forces to influence policy, yet the success of active
lobbying coalitions remains a blind spot in the literature. [2] This article is the first
to test how and when characteristics of active coalitions increase their lobbying
success. [3] Based on pluralist theory, one can expect diverse coalitions, uniting
different societal interests, to signal broad support to policy makers. [4] Yet, their
responsiveness to this signal (i.e., signaling benefits) and contribution incentives
within the coalition (i.e., cooperation costs) are likely to vary with issue salience.
[5] This theory is tested on a unique data set comprising 50 issues in five European
countries. [6] Results reveal a strong moderating effect of salience on the
relationship between coalition diversity and success: On less salient issues,
homogenous coalitions are more likely to succeed, whereas the effect reverses with
higher salience, where diverse coalitions are more successful. [7] These findings
have implications for understanding political responsiveness and potential policy
capture.
Recall that our third model of the scientific method includes six stages: Observation, Theory,
Hypothesis, Data, Analysis, and Update, so we are searching for representations of these in the
title and abstract. The title provides us the basis for a theory. We could reword the title to state a
theory of coalition composition and lobbying success. It is not atypical of titles to provide the
basis for a theory. The first three sentences of the abstract reveals that the author is observing
lobbyists, coalitions, and policy makers. These objects are interacting to create a political
phenomenon that the researcher is interested in exploring.
The third sentence “Based on pluralist theory, one can expect diverse coalitions, uniting different
societal interests, to signal broad support to policy makers” can be considered a hypothesis. For
example, we can restate this sentence: if coalitions are more diverse, then they serve as a clearer
signal to policy makers. Sentence four relates to the hypothesis because it introduces the concept
of issue salience and the author returns to it in sentence six. Sentence five reads: “This theory is
tested on a unique data set comprising 50 issues in five European countries.” The word “data” so
this is a clear statement of the data that is used.
In reading sentence six, the author states “Results reveal a strong moderating effect of salience
on the relationship between coalition diversity and success.” Issue salience is how widespread an
issue is known. If an issue is very salient, that means a lot of people are aware of it. If an issue is
not salient, that means that few people are aware of it. We will return to this in a moment. The
author started with a theory of coalition composition and lobbying success. However, after
analyzing their data, they find that issue salience “moderates” the effect of coalition composition
on lobbying success. Therefore, we should update our theory. Unfortunately, the author does not
list what kind of analysis they conduct with the data, so we would need to read the article to find
these details.
48
Journal Article #3
The third article we will map is titled “Evaluating the Conflict-Reducing Effect of UN
Peacekeeping Operations” by Havard Hegre, Lisa Hultman, and Havard Mokleiv Nygard
published in the Journal of Politics.
Evaluating the Conflict-Reducing Effect of UN Peacekeeping Operations
Abstract
[1] Several studies show a beneficial effect of peacekeeping operations (PKOs).
[2] However, by looking at individual effect pathways (intensity, duration,
recurrence, diffusion) in isolation, they underestimate the peacekeeping impact of
PKOs. [3] We propose a novel method of evaluating the combined impact across
all pathways based on a statistical model of the efficacy of UN PKOs in preventing
the onset, escalation, continuation, and recurrence of internal armed conflict. [4]
We run a set of simulations based on the statistical estimates to assess the impact
of alternative UN policies for the 2001–13 period. [5] If the UN had invested
US$200 billion in PKOs with strong mandates, major armed conflict would have
been reduced by up to two-thirds relative to a scenario without PKOs and 150,000
lives would have been saved over the 13-year period compared to a no-PKO
scenario. [6] UN peacekeeping is clearly a cost-effective way of increasing global
security.
Let’s read through the title and abstract, line by line, and see what each line provides us in terms
of the six stages of the scientific method. The title provides us parts of observation since it
specifically mentions United Nations (UN) peacekeeping and conflicts. Additionally, the title
offers information that could be reworded as: a theory of peacekeeping operations and conflict.
Sentence 1 states how prior research, worded as “several studies”, shows a positive influence of,
worded as “beneficial effect”, peacekeeping operations.
Sentence 2 states that looking just at intensity, or duration, or recurrence, or diffusion by

themselves overlooks their combined effect on conflict. For example, have you tried to carry a
bag of groceries with just one finger? Even though you struggled, you still carried the bag from
your car to your home. So, you could argue that your finger has all the strength needed to lug the
bag. Now, have you carried a bag of groceries using all five fingers? Most likely but wouldn’t
say you carried the bag with five fingers, rather, you would declare that you are carrying it with
your hand. Therefore, what the authors are arguing is that we need to see the effect of the hand,
not just each individual finger. With respect to the scientific method, this sentence is not clear,
but seems like it would fit under analysis.
Sentence 3 declares that the authors have a “novel method of evaluating the combined impact
across all pathways based on a statistical model”. This is clearly analysis because you use a
“statistical model” to conduct analysis of data. Additionally, sentence 4 describes how the
authors use “simulations based on the statistical estimates to assess the impact of alternative UN
49
policies for the 2001–13 period.” While simulations are a bit advanced (Carsey and Harden
2015), but they relate to analysis as well.
Sentences 5 and 6 describe how alternative policy choices by the United Nations could have
resulted in less conflict and less lives lost. This most closely relates to update, since Hegre, et. al.
suggest that more peacekeeping operations can reduce the impacts of conflicts. After reading
through the abstract, the hypothesis and data are not clear, so we would need to read through the
article to uncover this information.
Table 3-1: Summary of Mapping Journal Article Abstract Content onto Scientific Method stages
Journal Article Hager and Hilbig Junk 2019 Hegre, et. al. 2019
2019
Observation Society and Lobbyists, coalitions, United Nations,

inequality in society policy makers conflicts
Theory Equal inheritance Coalition composition Peacekeeping

rights and societal and lobbying success operations and
equality conflict
Hypothesis “But do equal “Based on pluralist -NIA-

inheritances succeed theory, one can
in leveling the expect diverse
societal playing coalitions, uniting
field?” different societal
interests, to signal
broad support to
policy makers.”
Data Country-specific: 50 issues in five -NIA-

Germany European countries
Analysis -NIA- -NIA- Statistical models and

simulations
Update -NIA- Theory of coalition More peacekeeping

composition, issue operations reduces
salience, and the impacts of
lobbying success conflicts
NIA = Not In Abstract
Key Terms/Glossary
● Abstract: An abstract is a summary of the article’s contents. Below is the title and
abstract.
50
● Falsification: the principle that any theory, or explanation of how the world works, can
always be proven false and that a theory can never be proven true
● Hypothesis: a statement derived from theory, providing the direction of the relationship
between two variables
● Paradigm: current way of thinking, doing, and understanding
● Philosophy of science: exploration of the foundations, methods, and implications of
science
● Scientific method: systematic process of discovering new knowledge
● Theory: a statement, derived from observations, that declares a relationship between at
least two variables
Summary
Summary of Section 3.1: Philosophy of Science

The philosophy of science is the exploration of science by asking at least three questions: What
are the foundations of science? What are the methods of science? And what are the implications
of science? Karl Popper is a notable figure for his contribution of the concept of falsification,
while Thomas Kuhn is well known for his concept of paradigm shifts.
Summary of Section 3.2: What is the Scientific Method?

The scientific method is explained using three models, from simple to complex. Common to all
three are the initial steps, observation and theory making. Observations of the world around us
lead to inquiry about the phenomena we see and to propose theories about how we think the
world works. Derived from the theory is a hypothesis that will allow us to test the theory.
Evidence in support of the theory may be found by collecting and analyzing the data.
Summary of Section 3.3: Applying the Scientific Method to Political

Phenomena
Open access journal article abstracts are mapped to see how political scientists utilize the
scientific method in their research. Not all political scientists will utilize each stage of the
scientific method due to the nature of their research question. In the three articles mapped in this
section, all participate in the observation of phenomena and theory making; however only Hager
and Hilbig 2019 and Junk 2019 participate in data collection; whereas Junk 2019 and Hegre et.
al. 2019 both update their theories.
Review Questions
1. Which philosopher of science is most associated with the concept of falsification?
a. Karl Popper
b. Thomas Kuhn
51
c. Richard McKelvey
d. Kenneth Arrow
2. Paradigm shifts can occur due to

a. production of new research
b. challenging existing research
c. continuing to ask the same question
d. exploring the same answers
3. Which of the following is NOT a part of the scientific method?

a. Argument
b. Observation
c. Theory
d. Hypothesis
e. Data
f. Analysis
g. Update
4. Common to the scientific method models are each of the following except:
a. Argument
b. Observation
c. Theory
d. Hypothesis
e. Data
f. Analysis
g. Update
5. Engaging in the scientific method, requires that researchers must participate in every
stage.
a. True
b. False

1. Suppose you hear on the news that a candidate’s personality has implications for why
people are voting for the candidate. When you ask your friends and family about their
opinions about the candidate, none of them seem to mention personality as a factor in
their vote. The news and your friends and family seem to be contradicting each other.
Utilizing the scientific method, how might you go about investigating this?
2. Utilizing the three articles mapped in the chapter as examples, create a similar map of an
article you find interesting. You can find open access articles at
52
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/open-access
or
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?AllField=open+source&ConceptID=58
&startPage=&accessStatusFilter=on
3. Write down observations you have made about the world. What questions do you have?
What do you think are answers to the questions?
Suggestions for Further Reading/Study

Websites
● Andersen, Hanne, and Brian Hepburn. 2016. “Scientific Method.” In The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2016. Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/scientific-method/.
● Anderson, Chris, Beth Mole, Ars Technica, Natalie Wolchover, Matt Simon, Alex Baker-
Whitcomb, and Sara Harrison. 2008. “The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the
Scientific Method Obsolete.” Wired, June 23, 2008. https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-
theory/.
● Boundless. n.d. “The Scientific Method | Boundless Psychology.” Accessed November 3,
2019. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapter/the-scientific-
method/.
Journal Articles
● Voit, Eberhard O. 2019. “Perspective: Dimensions of the Scientific Method.” PLoS
Computational Biology 15 (9): e1007279.
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007279
● Kind, Per, and Jonathan Osborne. 2017. “Styles of Scientific Reasoning: A Cultural
Rationale for Science Education?” Science Education 101 (1): 8–31.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21251.
● Dieckmann, Nathan F., and Branden B. Johnson. 2019. “Why Do Scientists Disagree?
Explaining and Improving Measures of the Perceived Causes of Scientific Disputes.”
PloS One 14 (2): e0211269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211269.
Books
● Gimbel, Steven. 2011. “Exploring the Scientific Method.” University of Chicago Press.
pu3430623_3430810. April 2011.
https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/E/bo5876269.html.
● Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Chicago and London.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XQqBP5trqCIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA176&d
q=scientific+revolutions&ots=WMpFe0S8DC&sig=PqKbZOVa2W8iiwTbmA_wC-
F6kQc.
53
● Popper, Karl. 2005. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.
Contributor(s)
● 1st edition, 2020: Josh Franco, Ph.D., Kau Vue, M.A., M.P.A.
References
Bird, Alexander. 2018. “Thomas Kuhn” ed. Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/thomas-kuhn/.
Carsey, Thomas M., and Jeffrey J. Harden. 2015. “Can You Repeat That Please?: Using Monte
Carlo Simulation in Graduate Quantitative Research Methods Classes.” Journal of Political
Science Education 11(1): 94–107.
Hager, Anselm, and Hanno Hilbig. 2019. “Do Inheritance Customs Affect Political and Social
Inequality?” American journal of political science 63(4): 758–73.
Junk, Wiebke Marie. 2019. “When Diversity Works: The Effects of Coalition Composition on
the Success of Lobbying Coalitions.” American journal of political science 63(3): 660–74.
Thornton, Stephen. 2019. “Karl Popper” ed. Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/popper/.
Wikipedia contributors. 2019. “Philosophy of Science.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_science&oldid=920222697
(October 10, 2019).
54
Chapter 4 - Theories, Hypotheses, Variables, and
Units
Josh Franco, Ph.D.
Chapter Outline
• Section 4.1: Correlation and Causation
• Section 4.2: Theory Construction
• Section 4.3: Generating Hypotheses from Theories
• Section 4.4: Exploring Variables
• Section 4.5: Units of Observation and Units of Analysis
• Section 4.6: Causal Modeling
Section 4.1: Correlation and Causation
Learning Objectives
● Remember the definition of theory
● Understand how a theory is generated
● Apply a model theory
● Analyze increasingly complex theories
● Evaluate statements to determine if they are theories or not
● Create a theory
55
Before diving into theories, hypotheses, variables, and units, it’s important to highlight two
broader concepts: correlation and causation. Correlation can be defined as a “process of
establishing a relationship or connection between two or more measures” (“Correlation - Google
Search” n.d.). For example, imagine a car is waiting at a road intersection. When the traffic light
turns green, we observe the car move forward. It can be argued that there is a correlation
between the color displayed on the traffic light and the movement of the vehicle. The traffic
light–car example is relatively clear, but the question is: does the traffic light color cause the car
to move? This question brings forward the concept of causation. Causation can be defined “as
the action of causing or producing” (“Definition of Causation | Dictionary.com” n.d.). While the
movement of the car corresponds to the color of the traffic light, what causes the movement of
the traffic light is the driver pressing down on the accelerator pedal. Doing so, fuel is released
into the engine which powers the turning of the wheels.
Why is correlation and causation important to political science? Correlation is important because
it lets us establish connections between political ideas, actors, institutions, and processes. When
we observe the world, our mind is primed to make connections between things. Doing so helps
us give meaning to the world and develop our understanding of it.
For example, let’s explore the relationship between demographics and congressional
representation. Below is a map of the United States. Each state is shaded in a color of sky-blue
which denote the percentage of women who reside in each state. Using the legend in the bottom
left corner of the map, we see that the lightest shade of sky-blue represents 47.9% to 50% of a
state’s population is woman. The darkest shade means that women account for 51.5% to 52.6%
of a state’s population. In other words, lighter shades mean a lower percentage of women and
darker shades mean a higher percentage of women.
56
Figure 4-1: Map of percent of women by U.S. state. Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
The next map of the United States displays information about the representation of women in the
116th Congress. In reviewing the map, we see variation in the number of women who represent
different states. For example, we see that California has 20 women representing it in Congress.
While this map doesn’t differentiate between the Senate and the House of Representatives, we
know that California has two female senators and eighteen Congresswomen. You will notice that
the following states have no female representation: Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vermont, Rhode Island, and
Maryland.
57
Figure 4-2: Map of Women in Congress by U.S. state. Source: U.S. House of Representatives.
Seeing these two maps lets us establish a connection between the two concepts represented by
the maps. The question we ask ourselves is does there appear to be a correlation between the
percent of women living in a state and the number of women representing that state and
Congress? In reviewing both maps, it would be fair to suggest that there does appear to be a
correlation between the two. For example, we see that Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas have
50% or fewer women living in these states. Then when we look at the congressional map, we see
that those states have no females representing them in Congress. Therefore, we have some
evidence to suggest that there is a relationship.
In political science, we are interested in exploring this relationship further. A question we can
ask ourselves is: as the percentage of women increases in a state, do we see an increase in the
number of women in Congress? And using the language of causation, we could ask: do greater
numbers of women cause an increase in the number of women representatives? The figure below
is a visualization of a correlation between our two concepts. As we will explore later in this
chapter, this is an example of what we call a causal model.
58
Figure 4-3: Correlation between concepts
There is a commonly repeated adage that correlation does not equal causation. In political
science, we take this adage to heart because it is important to be critical of what we perceive to
be connections between two concepts and not making the inferential leap that one is caused by
the other. Unlike our peers in the natural sciences, we study individuals, institutions, and
processes that are inherently complex and intertwined. We, like most others, can be susceptible
to presuming that there is a causal relationship between objects we are observing. Therefore, it is
important to take to heart that correlation is a prerequisite to causation, but there are other
conditions that need to be satisfied for us to make the inference of causality.
Four Conditions of Causality

There are four conditions of causality: logical time ordering, correlation, mechanism, and non-
spuriousness. Logical time ordering refers to the idea that one variable needs to precede another
variable in time for the first variable to influence the second variable. For example, throughout
the world, people are protesting their governments. In some countries, governments respond with
the metaphorical yawn. However, in other countries, the governments may respond with
repressive tactics. The question is do the protest precede the government response? On its face,
the answer is yes because why would the government respond to silence?
The second condition of causality is correlation. As we explored above, correlation is a

connection between two variables. Correlation is a prerequisite to establishing a causal
relationship because if two variables do not move together, then it is difficult to suggest that one
influences the other. Maintaining our example of public protest and government response, we
often see that when people protest, the government pays attention. This is due to mainstream
media coverage and social media activity of the protest. Since governments typically have
responsibility for maintaining peace and security, anytime there are activities that may disrupt
peace, the government will likely pay attention to what the media is covering and decide whether
to respond.
Our third condition of causality is mechanism. A causal mechanism is an explanation for how
one variable influences the other. Explanations can vary from relatively straightforward to
exhaustively complex. There is utility in employing both types of explanations to describe the
influence of one variable on the next variable. The reason is it may be straightforward to some
59
while the government responds to protesters. However, underlying this interaction, there may be
other actors, decisions, and actions that may shape engagement between the government and
protesters. For example, the Arab Spring starting in 2010 provides a contemporary example
where people throughout countries in the Middle East publicly protested for changes in their
political leadership and government systems. How did these protesters come together? Some
researchers point to social media, like Facebook and Twitter, which helped people collectively
organize their protesting efforts. Thus, we have a mechanism that shows how protest formed, and
how that initiated reaction from governments.
The final condition of causality is non-spuriousness. Non-spuriousness means that another

variable is not having an influence. With our example of protest and government response, we
must be careful to consider that other factors may influence this relationship. What else could
influence a government’s response to a protest within its country? A government may be hesitant
to respond with lethal force if it knows it’s being observed by an international media. An
international media outlet serves as a third-party observer to the activities within a country. As
the media records through video and first-hand accounts, they can begin to share that information
with the rest of the world. A government that uses lethal weapons on people who are peacefully
protesting could result in an outcry from the international community. Thus, are protests the only
thing that is influencing the government’s response? Or is there a spurious factor, such as the
international media outlet, that having the government question how it should respond?
As you can see, from a running example of public protest and government action, establishing a
causal relationship between two variables is difficult. The difficulty doesn’t mean we don’t work
through these four conditions, both using reason and evidence, rather it represents a rigorous way
to determine a causal relationship.
Section 4.2: Theory Construction
Learning Objectives
● Remember the definition of theory
● Understand how a theory is generated
● Apply a model theory
● Analyze increasingly complex theories
● Evaluate statements to determine if they are theories or not
● Create a theory
Remembering the Definition of Theory

In its simplest form, a theory is an explanation of how the world works. Now, there are many
ways in which the world works: natural, physical, chemical, biological, social, political,
historical and the list can go on. For example, political scientists are interested in how elected
60
officials behave during campaigns (Warren 2008). One theory is that elected officials are more
responsive to voters during campaigns. A reason an elected official is more likely to spend time
in their communities, host town halls, and meet with stakeholders during campaigns is because
they want to demonstrate how they are proactively serving their constituents.
In addition to suggesting how some aspect of the world works, theories also lead us to explore
possibilities. For example, what happens if an elected official spends less time or more time with
their constituents during campaigns? One could argue that by spending less time with
constituents during the campaign, an elected official is less likely to earn their support. On the
other hand, if an elected official spends more time with constituents, support for their campaigns
will increase.
In constructing a theory, we are engaging in a process of observing the world and proposing how
the world works.
A theory is a set of assumptions about constants, variables, and the relationship between
variables. In other words, a theory is a statement about the relationship between two objects with
all other objects held constant. In a complex world with a multitude of objects surrounding us, it
can be difficult to focus on just two objects. Thus, for a theory to be useful, we need to be able to
focus on at least two objects and the relationship between those objects. So, how can we focus on
just two objects and their relationship? To help us focus, we can hold all other objects constant.
Constant means that all other objects, except for the two objects we are interested in, are held
still.
C
X Y
Figure 4-4: Visualization of a theory
The letter X and the letter Y represent the two objects of interest, while the yellow box
symbolizes that a relationship exists between the two objects. The reason a theory needs to have
at least two objects is because a theory is an explanation of how one object relates to another
object. If we are just focused on one object, then we do not have a theory. Rather, we are
observing an object for its own sake.
61
Understanding How a Theory is Generated
A theory can be generated in three ways. First, a theory can be generated without reference to
any existing theory. This is very rare since a theory requires two objects. These two objects exist
because theories have attempted to explain the objects. Second, a theory can be an extension to
an existing theory. Given the multitude of theories that already exist, it is common for someone
to rely on and extend an existing theory. Third, a theory can be the contradiction of an existing
theory. While it is common to build on an existing theory, it can be just as common to use
contradiction to generate a theory.
Applying a Model Theory

A model theory is a statement that two objects, X and Y, exists and that a relationship exists
between X and Y. With this model theory, how can we apply it to topics or subjects we are
interested in? Let’s consider three examples.
First, we may be interested in the relationship between political actors in a democracy. The two
political actors we are interested in is the government and the media. We could argue that the
media is represented by object X while the government represented by object Y. A theory should
explain why and how there is a relationship between the media and the government.
Additionally, the theory should assume that other political actors are held constant, so we can
focus on the relationship between the media and the government.
Our next example is the relationship between information and voters in a representative
democracy. In this example, information is represented by X while voters are represented by Y.
Why would a voter have a relationship with information? One reason this relationship would
exist is because voters use information to make decisions on how to vote. Another reason is that
information is sent to voters from candidates and campaigns in order to influence a voter’s
decision.
Analyzing Increasingly Complex Theories

The core of any theory is the relationship between a minimum of two objects of interest.
However, theories can be more complex by having additional variables that can serve different
roles in a theory. For example, imagine we have a theory that states a relationship between three
variables: X, Y, and Z. The relationship between these three objects could be described in a
multitude of ways, but let’s focus on three potential relationships: X and Y, Y and Z, and X and
Z.
62
C
X Y Z
Figure 4-5: Visualization of a complex theory
Creating a Theory
Theories are statements of relationships between two concepts. There are three characteristics of
theories that we should seek to achieve when proposing a theory. First, a theory should be
general, meaning that it can include a variety of operationalizations and geographic contexts.
Let’s compare a specific theory to a general theory. A specific theory may be focused on how
voters in a midwestern U.S. state decide to support a presidential candidate. A researcher would
then propose hypotheses, collect evidence, analyze the data, and make some findings. The
knowledge generated from this process would be useful for future researchers want to better
understand the Midwestern voter, to political campaigns that try to reach these voters, and to
news outlets that want to provide background information to a new story at the written. The
question is: How can this theory be extended beyond the voter living in the Midwest of the
United States?
To answer this question, we need to propose a more general theory. A general theory can explore
how voters respond to national-level candidates. A researcher would again propose hypotheses,
collect evidence, analyze the data, and generate some results. Given that there are voters in
Europe, South America, Africa, Asia, Oceania, as well as North America, we can collect
evidence from voters living in countries in these regions of the world. In analyzing the data,
research and a fine a lot of differences but they also might find a lot of similarities between
voters responding to national level candidates in their countries. The similarities and differences
can help us better understand the relationship declared by the theory. So, by using a more general
theory we could subsume the more specific theory that was originally discussed.
It’s not to say that a specific theory is less useful than a general theory, because you can see how
the two ideas intertwine. By starting with the general theory, we can think more broadly about
how it applies in different times, places, and subjects. From here, we can narrow down to
specific places that are of greater interest to us knowing that we are feeding into the broader
exploration and knowledge creation process.
63
The second characteristic of theories is to try to make them parsimonious. Parsimonious means
frugal or to use something sparingly. When generating a theory, the point is to keep it simple
because when you make a theory too complicated it’s more difficult to see its generality and, as
will discuss momentarily, it’s falsifiability. Let’s walk through two examples of theories from
the most parsimonious to the least parsimonious so we can fix in our mind the utility of
maintaining simplicity. Consider that I have a theory about gender and representation. My
hypothesis is that gender has an influence on who runs and who wins elected office. Therefore,
in a study of voters, male candidates are more likely than female candidates to be elected to
office. To explore this hypothesis, I would collect data, analyze it, and reach some initial
findings that either support or do not support my hypothesis. This is a relatively straightforward
theory in the sense that an attribute of a candidate influences a voter support for that candidate.
Now, let’s make our original theory more complicated. Let’s consider a theory about candidate
attributes, voter behavior, campaign strategies, election processes, and policy outcomes. What
should strike you is that we have more than two concepts; here we have five concepts. In
proposing this theory, it could be argued that these concepts are linearly related: candidates
attributes affect voter behavior, which influences campaign strategies, which then shapes
electoral processes, and finally then alters policy outcomes. A well-reasoned explanation for
these connections may be convincing to some. However, the length of the theoretical chain
makes it susceptible to criticism. For example, are candidate attributes the only thing that
influences voting behavior? Moreover, does voter behavior influence campaign strategies or is
the relationship the other way around? Therefore, given the complexity of the theory, it can be
difficult to discern the nature of the relationships between different concepts. Hence, parsimony
is an important characteristic to consider when developing a theory to make clear and bring into
relationships within a theory.
Falsifiability is the third characteristic of theories we want to explain. Falsifiability is the ability
of a theory to be shown as false. Why should a theory be falsifiable? A theory that is not
falsifiable means that no amount of reason or evidence can lead a researcher to suggest that their
original theory is incorrect. If reason or evidence cannot be presented, then a theory cannot be
scrutinized. Thus, the scientific method process is broken because new information cannot be
brought to challenge a theory and suggest a new theory for us to be considered. At some point,
enough reason and evidence are brought to bear to suggest a theory is now a law. But the law is
not ironclad, it just becomes accepted by the scientific community for the time being.
Establishing a theory as a law does not preclude it from being falsified in the future when new
times, places, and contexts may challenge the findings from theories.
Together, generality, parsimoniousness, and falsifiability work together to make theories integral
parts of the scientific method and the discovery and creation of new knowledge.
64
Section 4.3: Generating Hypotheses from Theories
Learning Objectives
● Remember the definition of hypothesis
● Understand how a hypothesis is derived from a theory
● Apply a model hypothesis
● Analyze increasingly complex hypotheses
● Evaluate statements to determine if they are hypotheses or not
● Create a hypothesis
A hypothesis is an if-then statement that is derived from a theory. While a theory states that
there is a relationship between two concepts or objects of interest, a hypothesis declares the
values of the two concepts and how the change in the value of one affects the change in the value
of the second object. For instance, a hypothesis derived from the theory that elected officials are
more responsive to voters during campaigns might be that during the campaign season elected
officials are more likely to host town hall meetings as compared to when the candidate is not
running for reelection.
Generating hypotheses from theories can be a difficult task because concepts need to be
operationalized into objects that can be measured. Recall that theories must be falsifiable. A
hypothesis allows us to test the theory, providing evidence in support of our theory. Additional
examples of hypotheses include:
● In a comparison of US citizens, those that incur a higher cost of voting will be less likely
to vote in each election.
● In a comparison of US states, those that have a more professionalized legislature are
more likely to produce complex laws.
● In a comparison of countries, those that have developed natural resources are more likely
to have autocratic rulers.
● In a comparison of political leaders, those that have diverse economies are more likely to
support climate change policies.
The anatomy of a hypothesis is that it includes the units of observation, one value of the
independent variable, and one value of the dependent variable. For example, let’s break down
one of the examples from above. “In a comparison of US states” the term US states would serve
as the units of observation. In the part “a more professionalized legislature”, the term
professionalized (or professionalization) would serve as the independent variable. And finally, in
part “more likely to produce complex law”, the term complex (or complexity) would serve as the
dependent variable.
65
Section 4.4: Exploring Variables
Learning Objectives
● Remember that variables can be categorized as discrete or continuous
● Differentiate between discrete and continuous variables
Variables are objects that vary or change. Variables vary because of their inherent properties, by
nature, or by manipulation. Let’s explore each of these in turn. Variables may hold inherent
properties that make them vary. For example, let’s explore political efficacy. Political efficacy is
a complex concept (Atabey and Hasta 2018), but it boils down to your belief that you can
understand politics, influence a political institution, and that the political institution will be
responsive to your concerns.
Political efficacy can be high, medium, or low. If, for example, you had a high understanding of
politics, a strong belief that you can influence a political institution, a high expectation that a
political institution would be responsive to your concerns, then you would have high political
efficacy. On the other hand, you would have low political efficacy if you had little understanding
of politics, a weak belief that you can influence an institution, and low expectations about
institutional responsiveness. How can we measure political efficacy beyond using the high,
medium and low categories?
Variables can be placed into two categories: discrete and continuous. Discrete variables can have
values which we can count. For instance, a discrete variable can be -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, and so forth.
On the other hand, continuous variables have values which we can specifically measure. In this
case, a continuous variable can be zero, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, and so forth. Within these two
categories, exists two additional variable types. Discrete variables can have nominal and ordinal
values. While continuous variables can have interval and ratio values. These are discussed in a
later chapter.
What’s one way we can visualize discrete and continuous variables? Below in Figure #.1, there
are three panels. Panel 1, which visually represents two discrete variables. Both the independent
variable and the dependent variable have two values: no or yes. Given that we can count no (“0”)
and yes (“1”), we would consider this a discrete set of variables. Let’s consider the following
example. Our independent variable is “Registered to Vote” has two values: not registered to vote
(“No”) or registered to vote (“Yes”). Our dependent variable is “Voted in the prior Presidential
election” and has two values: did not vote in the prior presidential election (“No”) and did vote
in the prior presidential election (“Yes”).
66
Dependent
Variable
Value: Value:
No Yes
Value:
Independent
No
Variable
Value:
Yes
Panel 1: Discrete
Figure 4-6: Progress from Discrete to Continuous Variables, Panel 1
Panel 2 shows how we begin to move from discrete values to continuous values. This occurs
when we add more values of the independent variable, dependent variable, or both
simultaneously. For example, instead of our independent variable being “Registered to Vote” as
holding only two values, Yes or No, let’s think of this as “Likelihood of Being Registered to
Vote” which holds more than two values. The likelihood ranges from higher, medium, and
lower, and these values are represented by the increased number of rows.
67
Dependent
Variable
Value: Value:
Low High
Value:
Independent
Low
Variable
Value:
High
Panel 2: Toward Continuous

Finally, panel 3 visually represents a continuous independent variable and dependent variable.
The reason this is the case we have many values of both variables, as represented by the high
number of rows and columns, in comparison to panel 2.
68
Dependent
Variable
Value: Value:
Low High
Value:
Independent
Low
Variable
Value:
High
Panel 3: Continuous
Section 4.5: Units of Observation and Units of Analysis
Learning Objectives
● Understand the difference between a unit of observation and unit of analysis
Political scientists observe a range of political objects, such as political actors, institutions,
processes, interactions, and outcomes. Units of observation are the objects that a researcher is
specifically observing with the goal of describing the relationship between the objects. On the
other hand, a unit of analysis is the object that a researcher is specifically analyzing. These two,
units of observation and analysis, may sound similar, but are different concepts. Let’s explore
three examples from open access, peer-reviewed journal articles to help illuminate the difference
between units of observation and units of analysis.
Our first example comes from the Journal for International Development and the article
“Rethinking research partnerships: Evidence and the politics of participation in research
partnerships for international development” by Jude Fransman and Kate Newman (Fransman and
Newman 2019). In the article abstract, they write: “This article responds to the drive for research
partnerships between academics and practitioners, arguing that while potential benefits are clear,
these are frequently not actualized resulting in partnerships that are ineffectual or worse,
exacerbate damaging or inequitable assumptions and practices. In order to understand/improve
69
partnerships, a systematic analysis of the interrelationship between what counts as evidence and
dynamics of participation is proposed. Drawing on data from a seminar series and iterative
analysis of seven case studies of partnerships between Higher Education Institutions and
International Non‐Governmental Organisations, the article concludes by suggesting substantial
shifts in the theory and practice of partnerships.”
Thus, the authors observe how higher education institutions and international non-governmental
organizations partner to conduct research. And this means their units of observation are
academics and practitioners. However, the question is, what are Fransman and Newman
analyzing? Is it the academic organizations, international non-governmental organizations, or
both? With a careful read of the article, it could be argued that the units of analysis are case
studies of the partnerships themselves. For example, Table 1 in the article shows a comparison of
seven case studies that details the lead organization, additional partners Involved, types of
funding, level/scale of the partnership, disciplinary/thematic focus, and research approaches. And
throughout the remainder of the article, they are focused on the partnerships.
Our second example is found in the Economics and Politics and the article “The heterogeneous
effect of oil discoveries on democracy” by Tania Masi and Roberto Ricciuti (Masi and Ricciuti
2019). In the article abstract, they state: “This paper evaluates the existence of a resource curse
on political regimes using the Synthetic Control Method. Focusing on 12 countries, we compare
their democracy level with the weighted democracy level of countries that have not experienced
oil shocks and have similar pre‐event characteristics. We find that the exogenous variation in oil
endowment does not have the same effect on all countries. In most cases, the event has a
negative effect in the long run, but countries with a pre‐existing high level of democracy are not
negatively affected.” This abstract suggests that the authors are observing countries. Now, are the
countries the unit of analysis as well? A thorough review of the article suggests that the units of
analysis are the countries as well. For example, Figure 1 in the article compares the level of
democracy in each country with a “synthetic” version of itself. This suggests that both the unit of
observation and the unit of analysis are the same.
Our third example is located in the Journal of Representative Democracy and the article “Filling
the Void? Political Responsiveness of Populist Parties” by Carolina Plescia, Slyvia Kritzinger,
and Lorenzo De Sio (Plescia, Kritzinger, and De Sio 2019). The abstract reads: “This paper
examines the responsiveness of populist parties to the salience of issues amongst the public
focusing on a large number of issues on which parties campaign during elections. The paper
investigates both left- and right-wing populist parties comparatively in three countries, namely
Austria, Germany and Italy. We find that while populist parties carry out an important
responsiveness function, they are only slightly more responsive than their mainstream
counterparts on the issues they own. The results of this paper have important implications for our
understanding of political representation and the future of the populist appeal.” There are several
objects mentioned in the abstract that could serve as units of observation: parties, issues, the
public, campaigns, elections, and countries. It would follow that the researchers are observing
parties within specific countries, so we could assert that the units of observation are countries
70
themselves. However, given the variety of the objects the paper is examining, it’s clear that the
units of analysis are not just parties within countries. We could argue that the units of analysis
are the relationship between parties and the public. Particularly, this article is interested in how
parties are responsiveness to the priorities of the public. Therefore, the researchers are keenly
interested in measuring the relationship between these two objects.
Section 4.6: Causal Modeling
Learning Objectives
● Create a causal model
Causal modeling is the process of visualizing the relationships between concepts of interest
(Youngblut 1994a, [b] 1994). Additionally, this process also encourages researchers to consider
the possibility of other relationships between concepts that were not originally theorized or
otherwise considered.
Causal modeling was popularized by Judea Pearl, among other scholars (Pearl 1995, 2009; Pearl,
Glymour, and Jewell 2016). Underlying causal modeling is the concept of causality. In a public
lecture at the University of California, Los Angeles, Dr. Pearl stated that “causality – namely,
our awareness of what causes what in the world and why it matters” (Pearl 2009).
As a student of political science, it is important to know that the concept of causality has been
broached with adherence or passivism in the discipline. Those who adhere to the concept of
causality are vested in theorizing, hypothesizing, and accumulating empirical evidence that
explains the causes and effects of political behavior, processes, and institutions. Research that
does not aspire to declare and determine a cause-and-effect relationship is not rigorous, in the
view of adherents. On the other hand, passivists of causality believe, while important, the
discipline should not preclude or dismiss studies of politics that don’t have an explicit cause-and-
effect relationship which is being examined. The aspiration is on discovery and explanation, not
only cause-and-effect.
In his book Causality, Dr. Pearl (2009) shares: “The two fundamental questions of causality are:
(1) What empirical evidence is required for legitimate inference of cause-effect relationships? (2)
Given that we are willing to accept causal information about a phenomenon, what inferences can
we draw from such information, and how? These questions have been without satisfactory
answers in part because we have not had a clear semantics for causal claims and in part because
we have not had effective mathematical tools for casting causal questions or deriving causal
answers.”
Why are these questions important for political science students and scholars? Regarding the first
question, we observe the world. From our observation, we begin the process of stating theories,
71
producing hypotheses, and finding explanations from political actors, behaviors, processes, and
institutions. The observed world offers us empirical evidence and this evidence is a prerequisite
to inferring a cause-effect relation. With respect to the second question, political science grapples
with what inferences can be drawn from information and how. Information includes quantitative
and qualitative data. How we draw inferences from this information includes the use of
probability, statistics, mathematics, and logic.
Causal modeling, as Dr. Pearl has explored, has an underlying logic and mathematics. For our
purposes, we want to explore three visualizations to seed the utility of causal modeling and leave
the underlying logic and mathematics for you to further explore on your own or in future
courses. Below are three causal models: 1, 2, and 3.
Model 1 shows the simplest relationship between two objects: A and B. There is an arrow that
points from A to B, this denotes the direction of the relationship. One can assume when an arrow
points from one object to another, that the pointing object is a “cause” while the pointed object is
an “effect.”
Model 1
A B
Figure 4-9: Causal model: A to B
Model 2 shows the relationship between three objects: A, M, and B. There is an arrow that points
from A to M. M stands for mediator, since it mediates, or stands in between, the relationship
between A and B. Given that A influences B through M, A is more precisely stated as an
“indirect cause”. While there is an arrow from M to B, M is not considered the “cause” because
the model includes A.
Model 2 A M B
Figure 4-10: Causal model: A to M to B
Finally, model 3 shows the relationship between three objects: A, B, and C. First, we notice that
A points to B, meaning that A is considered a “cause” of the “effect” B. However, unlike model
2, we also see C. C has a directional relationship with both A and B. In this instance, C is called
a “confounder” because we didn’t explicitly include it in the original model, as denoted by the
dots instead of solid lines of the circle.
72
Model 3
A B
Figure 4-11: Causal model: C to A, A to B, and C to B
Drawing causal models is useful because it lets us “see” the relationships between objects of
interest. As you explore political phenomenon, keep the tool of causal modeling handy.
Key Terms/Glossary
● Causal modeling: visual method for describing simple and complex relationships
between variables
● Causation: an explanation of how one variable, typically known as the independent
variable, affects another variable, typically known as the dependent variable
● Correlation: a relationship between two variables
● Hypothesis: an if-then statement explaining how one variable should influence another
variable
● Theory: a statement declaring a relationship between two variables
● Unit of analysis: an object that is analyzed, using qualitative or quantitative methods, by
the researcher
● Unit of observation: an object that is observed by a researcher
● Variable: an object that can hold at least two values
Summary
Summary of Section 4.1: Correlation and Causation

Causation and correlation are important to political science. Correlation establishes connections
between ideas, actors, institutions, and processes while causation establishes a causal connection.
Because connections are established does not mean that the connection is a causal one;
correlation does not equal causation. Correlation is, however, one condition of causality along
73
with logical time ordering, mechanism, and non-spuriousness. When these four conditions are
met, a causal connection is possible.
Summary of Section 4.2: Theory Construction

A theory is an explanation of how the world works. It is a set of assumptions about constants,
variables, and the relationship between variables. Generating a theory can occur in three ways:
without referencing existing theory, extending an existing theory, or contradicting an existing
theory. When creating a theory, researchers should remember that theories should be general,
parsimonious and falsifiable.
Summary of Section 4.3: Generating Hypotheses from Theories

A hypothesis is an if-then statement that is derived from a theory. While a theory states that there
is a relationship between two concepts or objects of interest, a hypothesis declares the values of
the two concepts and how the change in the value of one affects the change in the value of the
second object. Hypothesis should contain three elements: units of observation, a value of the
independent variable, and a value of the dependent variable.
Summary of Section 4.4: Exploring Variables

Variables are objects that vary or change due to their inherent properties. They can be placed in
two categories: discrete (values we can count) and continuous (values we can measure). Discrete
values can be nominal or ordinal whereas continuous variables can be interval or ratio.
Summary of Section 4.5: Units of Observation and Units of Analysis

Political scientists observe a wide range of political objects; however, these objects do not have
the same purpose. Some objects are units of observation and others are units of analysis. Units of
observation are the objects that a researcher is specifically observing with the goal of describing
the relationship between the objects. A unit of analysis is the object that a researcher is
specifically analyzing.
Summary of Section 4.6: Causal Modeling

Causal modeling is the process of visualizing the relationships between concepts of interest. It
allows us to “see” the relationships between objects of interest. It can also be useful in assisting
researchers to consider the possibility of other relationships between concepts.
Review Questions
1. Correlation is when one variable causes another variable to change.
a. True
b. False
74
2. Causation is when one variable is correlated with another variable
a. True
b. False
3. Hypotheses are typically considered if-then statements

a. True
b. False
4. Identify the discrete variable(s) and the continuous variable(s).

a. Gender and money
b. Money and gender
c. Race and gender
d. Time and race
5. Which of the following best describes a unit of observation compared to a unit of

analysis?
a. Unit of observation is what the researcher is looking at, while the unit of analysis
is what the researcher is analyzing
b. Unit of observation is what the researcher is analyzing, while the unit of analysis
is what the researcher is observing
c. The unit of observation and the unit of analysis are the exact same thing, therefore
there is no comparison to be made

1. Generate a causal theory between two variables you are interested in. Assess the
likelihood of causality by addressing the four conditions of causality.
2. Generate a causal theory between two variables and provide a visual representation. Next,
create a hypothesis that would allow you to test your theory.
3. Identify a variable of interest and assess how you will measure it. Utilizing the same
variable, first create a discrete variable and then create a continuous measure of the
variable.

Websites
● “Step 3: Generate Hypotheses about Likely Sources | Foodborne Outbreaks | Food Safety
| CDC.” 2018. November 5, 2018.
https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/outbreaks/investigating-
outbreaks/investigations/sources.html.
75
● “Formulating/Extracting Hypotheses.” 2010. A Political Science Guide. June 8, 2010.
https://politicalscienceguide.com/what-is-research/formulatingextraction-hypotheses/.
● Ron Wallace. 2013. “Research Questions Hypothesis and Variables.” YouTube. May 20,
2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BmjujlZExQ.
Journal Articles
● Youngblut, J. M. 1994. “A Consumer’s Guide to Causal Modeling: Part I.” Journal of
Pediatric Nursing 9 (4): 268–71.
● Clarke, Kevin A., and David M. Primo. 2007. “Modernizing Political Science: A Model-
Based Approach.” Perspectives on Politics 5 (4): 741–53.
● Tully, Mary P. 2014. “Research: Articulating Questions, Generating Hypotheses, and
Choosing Study Designs.” The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 67 (1): 31–34.
Books
● Jaccard, J., and J. Jacoby. 2010. “Theory Construction and Model Building: A Practical
Guide for Social Scientists.” New York: The Guilford Press.
● Pearl, Judea. 2009. Causality. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.
● Morgan, Stephen L., and Christopher Winship. 2015. Counterfactuals and Causal
Inference. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107587991.
References
Atabey, Gullu, and Derya Hasta. 2018. “Political Participation, Political Efficacy and Gender.”
Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.7816/nesne-06-13-10.
“Correlation - Google Search.” n.d. Accessed November 8, 2019.
https://www.google.com/search?q=correlation&oq=correlation&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j35i39
j0l5.1711j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.
“Definition of Causation | Dictionary.com.” n.d. Www.dictionary.com. Accessed November 8,
2019. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/causation.
Fransman, Jude, and Kate Newman. 2019. “Rethinking Research Partnerships: Evidence and the
Politics of Participation in Research Partnerships for International Development.” Journal of
International Development 31 (7): 523–44.
Masi, Tania, and Roberto Ricciuti. 2019. “The Heterogeneous Effect of Oil Discoveries on
Democracy.” Economics and Politics 31 (3): 374–402.
Pearl, Judea. 1995. “Causal Diagrams for Empirical Research.” Biometrika 82 (4): 669–88.
———. 2009. Causality. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.
Pearl, Judea, Madelyn Glymour, and Nicholas P. Jewell. 2016. Causal Inference in Statistics: A
Primer. John Wiley & Sons.
Plescia, Carolina, Sylvia Kritzinger, and Lorenzo De Sio. 2019. “Filling the Void? Political
Responsiveness of Populist Parties.” Representations , July, 1–21.
Warren, Kenneth F. 2008. Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior.
SAGE Publications.
76
Youngblut, J. M. 1994a. “A Consumer’s Guide to Causal Modeling: Part I.” Journal of Pediatric
Nursing 9 (4): 268–71.
———. 1994b. “A Consumer’s Guide to Causal Modeling: Part II.” Journal of Pediatric
Nursing 9 (6): 409–13.
77
Chapter 5 - Conceptualization, Operationalization,
Measurement
Charlotte Lee, Ph.D.
Chapter Outline
• Section 5.1: Conceptualization in political science
o 5.1.1 What is conceptualization?
o 5.1.2 Dimensions and indicators
o 5.1.3 Concept mapping
• Section 5.2: Operationalization
o 5.2.1 Operationalize a concept
o 5.2.2 Collecting data
• Section 5.3 Measurement
o 5.3.1 Types of measurement
o 5.3.2 Quality of measures
o 5.3.3 Applying measures and concepts: Some measures of regime type
Section 5.1: Conceptualization in political science
Learning Objectives
• Identify the process by which ideas and observations are turned into concepts
• Consider the relationship between concepts, dimensions, and indicators
• Understand the method of concept mapping
78
5.1.1 What is conceptualization?
Concepts are the building blocks of theories. Concepts are “names for things, feelings, and ideas
generated or acquired by people in the course of relating to each other and to their
environment." 1 Creating concepts is one of the first steps to engaging with the world. The
process of conceptualization calls for the powers of observation and imagination. A political
scientist might observe that all groups of people abide by authority, and that authority looks
different across different groups of people. That might lead to the conceptualization of “regime,”
or the organization of political authority across different societies. Or a political theorist might
imagine that it’s possible to organize a political authority for all of humankind. That might lead
to the conceptualization of “global government.” In other words, conceptualization is a process
of naming things in the world, either observed or imagined (or sometimes a mix of the two), and
using language to communicate those names, or concepts.
Political thinkers have long sought to conceptualize political authority, beginning with early
philosophers such as Aristotle. In Politics, Aristotle begins by conceptualizing aspects of
political life such as citizenship and the state. He asserts, “He who has the power to take part in
the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizens [sic] of that
state; and, speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life.” 2
After noting these building blocks of political life, Aristotle then wonders about the many ways
in which citizens and states are organized. He muses,
“We have next to consider whether there is only one form of government or
many, and if many, what they are, and how many, and what are the differences
between them. …Governments which have a regard to the common interest are
constituted in accordance with strict principles of justice, and are therefore true
forms; but those which regard only the interest of the rulers are all defective and
perverted forms, for they are despotic, whereas a state is a community of freemen.
“Having determined these points, we have next to consider how many forms of
government there are, and what they are; and in the first place what are the true
forms, for when they are determined the perversions of them will at once be
apparent. The words constitution and government have the same meaning, and the
government, which is the supreme authority in states, must be in the hands of one,
or of a few, or of the many. The true forms of government, therefore, are those in
which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common
1
Hoover, Kenneth and Todd Donovan. 2011. The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking. Tenth Edition. Wadsworth
Cengage Learning, p. 12.
2
Aristotle. 350 BCE. Politics. Book 3, Part I. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Available online at
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html.
79
interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether
of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions.” 3
Aristotle, writing from a place of observation but also imagination, offers foundational concepts
for understanding political life: citizens, states, and varieties of government. A shorthand term
for the concept “varieties of government” that we use today is “regime.”
For Aristotle, the key variation in political authority is whether government (or regime)
comprises one, a few, or many leaders. Second, he considers in whose interest that government is
ruling, a narrow or broader constituency. By conceptualizing government in this way, Aristotle is
making some important moves. He is asserting that there are two salient dimensions to regime,
the size of the ruling group and in whose interest, they are ruling. Table 5.1 summarizes the types
of government (regime) identified by Aristotle.
Table 5-1: Aristotle’s forms of government (regime types)
Ruling in whose interest

Number of Rulers Common interest Private interests of one or the few
One Kingship Tyranny
Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
Many Polity Democracy
In short, concept building is determining, to the best of our ability, precise language for
observations and ideas that we believe are important for understanding social life. Concepts are
the building blocks for theory and theory testing.
5.1.2 Dimensions and indicators

The brief foray into Aristotle’s conceptualization of political authority reveals two additional
important aspects of concept building: dimensions and indicators. Concepts, especially the
complex ones that are foundational in the study of human behavior, often have many dimensions.
After identifying a concept such as “forms of government” (hereafter “regime”), concept
building involves further thinking about underlying variation in that concept. Regime type, for
example, might be thought of in Aristotelian terms: how concentrated political authority is in that
society (e.g., in one, a few, or many leaders). Another dimension of regime may be how leaders
are selected, regardless of their number. Yet another dimension, considered by Aristotle, is
whether leaders serve public or private interests.
These are all dimensions of the same single concept, regime. Consider another important concept
in politics, prosperity. There are many dimensions to this concept. One dimension may be the
amount of wealth in a society. Another dimension might be how healthy a society is. Another
3
Ibid. Book 3, Parts VI and VII.
80
dimension may be how equally goods are distributed in a society. Yet another dimension may be
stability in the wealth enjoyed by members of a society. And so forth. Note that there exist many
possible measures for each dimension of prosperity, a topic that will be taken up in section 5.3.
Indicators are more concrete aspects of dimensions. They are more specific and are often what
we observe in the world around us. Continuing the example of regime, Aristotle and observations
of the contemporary world suggests three dimensions to this concept: how leadership is
structured, how that leadership rules over society, and how that leadership is selected. Aristotle
suggests one indicator for the structure of different regimes: when there is one, a few, or many
rulers. More generally, another indicator of this dimension might be the specific number of rulers
in a government. In the United States, the number of elected rulers in federal government is 537,
or 535 legislators, one president, and one vice president. Today, regime is also understood in
terms of whether public office holders are selected via elections. This dimension of regime is
leadership selection, and one indicator of this is the presence or absence of elections. Recall the
discussion of variables in Chapter 4 and note that dimensions and indicators can be variables.
Concepts, dimensions, and indicators relate to one another in terms of their level of abstraction
and how many may be nested within the other. Concepts are building blocks and foundational for
scholarly inquiry. They are often abstract, for example the concept of “regime” as a way of
naming and thinking about political authority. Dimensions are less abstract, and there may be
many dimensions to a concept. Indicators are the most concrete, and there may be many
indicators for a single dimension of a concept. Figure 5.1 below sums up how we might think
about the concept of “regime”, related dimensions, and possible indicators of those dimensions.
Concept Dimensions Indicators
Number of
leaders
Leadership
form "One, few,
the many"
Common
Regime Rulers'
interests
Private
Elections
Leadership
selection
No elections
Figure 5-1: An example of a concept, dimensions, and indicators
5.1.3 Concept mapping

Concept mapping is a method for identifying concepts, dimensions and indicators, and their
relationships to each other. Concept mapping can help with formulating a research topic and
eventually a research question. It is a means to place concepts in a visual way such that one has a
81
pictorial understanding of relationships between concepts, dimensions, and indicators. Concept
mapping can be done by individuals or groups. Creating a concept map entails several
conventions.
First, key concepts are usually enclosed in boxes or circles on a concept map. Another alternative
is writing concepts on slips of paper to move them around the concept map. If a researcher
wanted to create a concept map around the question, “What are the consequences of different
regime types in the world?” they might first start by putting the word “regime” in a box at the top
of the mapping space. Other related concepts, such as “conflict” and “prosperity” and “power”
might also go in boxes on the map.
Second, concept maps are spatially organized from top to bottom, with more general concepts at
the top of the mapping space (anything from a piece of paper to a wall-sized whiteboard) to more
specific concepts at the bottom.
Third, lines or arrows are used to connect related concepts. If the researcher wants to explore the
relationship between “regime” and “leadership form”, they might put those two phrases in circles
and then connect those circles with a line and the words “according to Aristotle, determined by”.
Another line might connect “regime” and “private interest” with “is perverted when rulers rule in
the”. Figure 5.2 below offers an example of a concept map created using a computer program.
Figure 5-2: An example of a concept map created using the IHMC CmapTools computer program by Vicwood40, CC BY-SA 3.0
Concept maps are a useful tool for visually depicting the scope of one’s knowledge on a central
concept, relationships between that concept and relevant concepts, dimensions, and indicators.
82
Concept maps can also reveal how knowledge is organized and gaps in knowledge (i.e., areas for
research). Concept mapping is distinct from other activities such as brainstorming because there
are specific conventions how concept maps are drawn and how space is utilized in a concept
map. Brainstorming can be a more general way to jot down concepts which are related to each
other, but there are no conventions in brainstorming for how to organize concepts visually.
Section 5.2: Operationalization
Learning Objectives
• Consider the process by which concepts are operationalized to begin collecting relevant
data in the “real” world
• Understand aspects of data collection - What, why, how
5.2.1 Operationalize a concept

After putting a name to observations of the world – creating concepts – the next step is to
“operationalize” those concepts. Operationalization is the process by which a researcher defines
a concept in measurable terms. In other words, “to operationalize a concept means to put it in a
form that permits some kind of measurement of variation.” 4 Variation implies that the measure
selected will take on different values. For example, one operationalization of the concept
“regime” might be to focus on the number of leaders in power. This might be measured by
counting individuals in power. Observing real world country cases, it would appear that this
ranges in number from a single leader (such as Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, who was either
prime minister or president from 1980 to 2017) to many (such as China’s Politburo Standing
Committee, which has varied from five to eleven decision-makers since 1949).
Note the importance of variation when operationalizing a concept. Without variation, it is

difficult to identify patterns of association such as correlation and causation. If “regime” were
operationalized more broadly (and poorly) as “presence of a government,” then there would be
no variation on this measure in the contemporary world. It would then be difficult to ascertain
the causal effect of regime type on some outcome of interest (i.e., dependent variable), such as
interstate war, if the operationalization of that concept did not vary.
A constant – the presence of government – cannot therefore explain something that varies, which
in this example is the presence or absence of interstate war. This problem also arises if we treat
this operationalization of regime as the outcome of interest. Again, an absence of variation
makes it difficult to ascertain determinants of that constant. Imagine asking whether levels of
economic growth have some effect on regime type. Economic growth varies by country, but if
4
Hoover, Kenneth and Todd Donovan. 2011. The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking. Tenth Edition. Wadsworth
Cengage Learning, p. 42.
83
regime type is operationalized as the presence of a government, this constant cannot be explained
by other social phenomena which vary.
Operationalizing a concept must be done with some additional considerations in mind,

specifically identifying valid and reliable measures of that concept. These considerations will be
taken up in section 5.3 of this chapter. At the moment, the important thing is to think about ways
to measure a concept and be sure that there is variation on that measure. Returning to the
example of Aristotle, he first conceptualizes something we refer to today as “regime,” then
operationalizes regime by suggesting two measures: how many leaders are in power and in
whose interest they rule. For the first measure, Aristotle offers “one, few, [and] the many
[rulers]” as three categories for measuring this concept. For the second measure, Aristotle offers
two categories, whether a ruler is ruling in the name of “private” or “common” interests. A third
measure that is commonly used today to operationalize the concept of regime is the presence of
free and fair elections. This is a binary measure: does a country hold competitive elections or
not? With these three measures as starting points, a researcher can embark on the process of data
collection.
5.2.2 Collecting data

Data collection is the gathering of relevant information to inform a research topic or question.
Ideally, collected data will help with answering a research question, but the process of data
collection may entail learning about many aspects of a research topic before a question
crystallizes. Chapters 6 and 7 will explore in more depth quantitative and qualitative methods for
data collection. For our purposes here, the central questions will be,
• What kind of data should I collect?
• Why am I collecting this data?
• How can I collect this data?
Determining what kind of data to collect hinges of the operationalization of a concept. There are
also practical scope considerations to resolve before embarking on data collection. These usually
have to do with time and space: which period of time and which parts of the world (if not the
entire world) to focus on. For beginning researchers, the best strategy for answering these
questions is asking, what am I interested in? And do I have any prior knowledge that I can bring
to bear on answering these questions of research scope? The first question is the more important
one and reflecting on personal interest and taste is a good start.
Research and especially data collection require sustained effort and often present unexpected
challenges, hence a genuine interest can help motivate a researcher through rough patches. The
second question can also help relieve some of the challenges with data collection (e.g.,
overcoming linguistic constraints, knowledge of existing data sources, contextual expertise) but
is of secondary importance. Research and data collection can certainly be about creating new
knowledge on entirely unfamiliar topics, and unbridled curiosity is encouraged.
A second set of considerations hinges on whether a researcher is interested in quantitative,

qualitative, or mixed sources of data. Chapters 7 and 8 take up qualitative and quantitative
84
research methods, respectively, and here the focus is on which methods to pursue. The method
often hinges on how a concept has been operationalized. If we operationalize regime as a simple
count of how many leaders are in power in a country, then this lends itself to building a
quantitative dataset. If we are interested in collecting the titles of those political offices, this
suggests a more qualitative approach is needed. But perhaps both the number of leaders and their
titles might be useful, which suggests collecting a mix of quantitative and qualitative data.
Taking up the second question, “Why am I collecting this data?” a researcher might return to
first principles. What is the underlying concept of interest in this research project? How has that
concept been operationalized, and does the proposed measure (or measures) vary in value? Data
collection always demands resources, be it time or money or carbon emissions or all the above,
hence it is important to question from the outset what kind of data might be ideal for
understanding underlying concepts. Having a research question formulated can also help with
this, as the proposed data collection can be more sharply evaluated when thinking about whether
the ideal data might help to answer a central question of interest.
Finally, the third question a researcher might ask is, “How can I collect this data?” An important
first step is conducting a literature review. As the saying goes, “Don’t reinvent the wheel.” A
literature review is the process of reading relevant scholarly work on a research topic or research
question of interest. This is often conducted with the assistance of other experts, for example
professors, librarians, and colleagues. When reviewing relevant literature, a researcher can
ascertain whether relevant data has already been collected and exists in an accessible dataset.
Or they might identify whether related research, and accompanying datasets, might be available
and used in part to build a new dataset. There are many publicly available quantitative datasets
available for download from the internet. Governments and international organizations such as
the United Nations and World Bank are also common repositories of useful social science data.
Librarians are also excellent resources and often know where to locate data within a library’s
holdings. Figure 5.2 offers a starting point for locating common social science statistical datasets.
Table 5-2: Some common sources of data for research in the social sciences
Some common sources of data for research in the social sciences
1. Government Statistics: National governments are often the only institutions with the
resources (and authority) to collect comprehensive social statistics, and thus publish the
overwhelming majority of social statistics available. Most countries have a national
statistical agency that collects and publishes statistics, and simply perusing that
agency's website or publications catalog is often the best way to find their statistics.
The US is more complicated, since responsibility for statistics is spread among many
federal agencies. Wikipedia has a list of the principal federal statistical agencies. The
United Nations and other international government organizations collate and publish
comparative statistical data from their member nations. Most state, provincial, and
municipal governments also collect and publish some statistics.
85
2. Public Opinion Polls: News and political organizations routinely conduct or
commission opinion polls on a variety of topics. Many of those poll results can be
found at the ICPSR or other poll archives for which university libraries often have
subscriptions.
3. Academic Research: Social science researchers often gather data as part of their
studies. The results are usually presented in the published academic literature. Search
any of the major article databases to find these articles. Most articles will only contain
summary data, but the complete datasets can often be obtained from the original
researchers.
4. Commercial Market and Business Research: Many corporations and trade
organizations collect economic statistics and sell them for profit. Often a very hefty
profit, which means university libraries purchase only a limited number of these data
products.
Source: UCLA Library. Research Guides, “Social Statistics and Data,” Available online at
http://guides.library.ucla.edu/data/sources
Statistical datasets are often available for download from the internet or via subscription from a
university or college library. Qualitative datasets are generally more difficult to come by. In the
course of conducting a literature review, a scholar may cite a qualitative dataset (typically their
own), and these are sometimes available on scholars’ personal webpages or the webpages of
affiliated research centers. It also doesn’t hurt to contact a scholar directly if you are interested in
their data; the scholarly spirit is to share knowledge, after all.
Section 5.3: Measurement
Learning Objectives
• Analyze different types of measurement
• Evaluate the quality of measures
• Explore existing measures of regime type
5.3.1 Types of measurement

When operationalizing a concept, one important consideration is the kind of measure that will be
used. Measurement is “the assignment of numbers or labels to units of analysis to represent
variable categories.” 5 In other words, measurement is putting values on variables. Measurement
is highly concrete insofar as it entails translating observations of the world into standard units.
Those units can still be very abstract, but measurement is a crucial step for creating the data that
can then be analyzed. For example, the research and advocacy organization Freedom House uses
a scale that ranges from 0 to 100 to measure the levels of freedom, political and civil, in
5
Raymo, James M. 2009. “Methods of Sociological Inquiry.” Course slides, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
86
countries around the world. 6 The number 100 on the Freedom House scale does not equate to
100 units of something tangible, the way we would measure, say, pounds of flour, yet it is a more
precise way of thinking about differing levels of freedom around the world. Based on the
Freedom House scale, it is possible to compare levels of freedom across countries and over time
and analyze trends more systematically.
There are four types of measures: nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio. Table 5.3 below
summarizes them briefly.
Table 5-3: Types of measures
Type of Measure Description

Nominal Observations are classified into two or more categories, with numerical
values assigned to each category
Example: Racial and ethnic categories maintained by the US Census
Bureau
Ordinal Observations are rank ordered, with numbers assigned to indicate the
rank ordering on some dimension
Example: Attitude question on surveys ranging from 1 = “Strongly
Disagree” to 5 = “Strongly Agree”
Interval Observations fall along a scale with standard units
Example: Timeline that ranges from 1945 to 2000 with 5-year periods of
time demarcated
Ratio Interval ratio with an absolute zero
Example: Age, weight
Nominal measures are focused on classification. One example of a nominal measure are the
racial and ethnic categories used in the US Census, such as “Black or African American” (a
racial category) or “Hispanic” (an ethnic category). 7 Aristotle offered a nominal measure of
regime type when he listed six different types of regime, including “democracy” and “tyranny”
and so forth. 8 Numbers can be assigned to each category, but these assignments are arbitrary and
not useful for rank-ordering categories. Good nominal measures are those which are exhaustive
and mutually exclusive. A nominal measure is exhaustive when every observation falls within
the given categories. A well-constructed nominal measure should also have mutually exclusive
categories, meaning that there is no overlap between categories. On these criteria, it would
6
See Freedom House online at https://freedomhouse.org/
7
A summary of US Census Bureau racial and ethnic categories is available at
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI625218
8
One of Aristotle’s criteria for these categories was the number of rulers, so there was also some attempt at
interval measurement in his classification of regime type. However, this was mixed with his focus on whether
rulers ruled in the common or private interest.
87
appear that the racial categories used by the US federal government are problematic. First, they
are not exhaustive as they do not include the possibility of classifying individuals who identify as
two or more races. Second, the categories are not mutually exclusive, as the “White” and “Black
or African American” racial categories both include individuals who may trace their geographic
origins to the African continent.
Ordinal measures classify and rank-order observations. Observations fall along some ranking
system, with numbers assigned to different ranks. One example of an ordinal measure is a survey
question which asks respondents whether they “strongly agree,” “somewhat agree,” “[are]
neutral,” “somewhat disagree,” and “strongly disagree” with a statement, and there are numerical
values in descending or ascending order assigned to each response category. Another example of
an ordinal measure are socioeconomic categories which may range from “lower class” to “lower
middle class” to “middle class” to “upper class”. Note that the categories in ordinal measures
provide some information about relative rankings. For example, someone in the upper class
probably has higher household income than someone in the lower class. However, ordinal
measures are not designed for mathematical manipulation. One should not take the average of all
the responses to a survey question noted above to arrive at the “average” level of agreement to a
statement.
An interval measure contains numerical values which are assumed to have equal distances
between each unit. Taking the Freedom House scale mentioned previously, which ranges from 0
to 100, countries fall on this scale based on observations of levels of freedom in each country.
Another example of interval measurement is the numerical score you might receive for each
exam in your class, which typically ranges from 0 to 100. Mathematical manipulation can be
conducted on these measures. For example, if you received an 80 and a 70 on your two exams,
they could be averaged to yield an average exam score of 75 (assuming the exams were worth
the same percentage of your final grade).
Ratio measures are interval measures that have a true zero. An example of this is weight or age.
What is the significance of a measure having a true zero? This allows for statements comparing
observations on the ratio. For example, if two people are 20 and 40, it is possible to state that the
40-year-old is twice as old as the 20-year-old. Taking the example of interval measure noted
previously, there is no true zero on the Freedom House measure. It could be the case, for
example, that countries fall below zero but are just not captured by the criteria used for the scale.
And for an interval measure such as Freedom House’s, it is not possible to state that a country
ranked 60 on the Freedom House scale is twice as free as a country ranked 30 on that scale.
Comparing across these four types of measures, each yields information that builds upon the
contributions of the previous kind of measure. Nominal measures help with classification. It
follows from this that nominal measures allow for counting the total number or frequency of
some category within the classification system. Ordinal measures classify as well, but they also
allow for ordering observations. Interval measures classify and rank order observations, but they
also present equal intervals for measuring observations. Finally, for those variables where there
88
is a true zero, ratio measures allow for classification, rank ordering, and measuring intervals.
They also allow for assessing the relative value of observations.
5.3.2 Quality of measures
An important consideration when determining a measure for a concept is whether that measure is
of high quality. Some criteria for evaluating this are the precision and accuracy of the proposed
measure. A precise measure is one that is exact. For example, consider how to measure education
levels. Doing so by tracking the schools from which an individual has graduated is one measure,
and it is passably precise. (For example, an individual may graduate from elementary, then
middle and high school.) Counting the years that an individual has attended school is perhaps a
more precise measure, since not all education systems may be divided into elementary, middle,
and high school levels. This second approach allows for more fine-grained data collection – i.e.,
more precise data – for analysis.
Accuracy presents additional challenges. An accurate measure is one which measures the
underlying concept that it was intended to measure. This relates to two characteristics, reliability
and validity. A reliable measure is where there is a low possibility of measurement error. One
way to assess this is to see whether different researchers still arrive at the same findings when
applying the same measure. Reliable measures are those which have the potential for
replicability, one of the standards for evaluating the robustness of a research finding. A valid
measure is more difficult to evaluate, but it basically reduces to whether a measure is
meaningful. For example, is an IQ test a valid way to measure a person’s intelligence? Validity is
difficult to assess and therefore hotly debated among researchers.
One way to think about precision, reliability, and validity is to imagine a dart board with
concentric circles and a bull’s eye in the center. The bull’s eye in the center of the dart board is
the concept that a researcher is trying to measure. A precise measure would be a dart that has a
fine needle rather than a fat needle. A reliable measure would be one where repeated darts
thrown at the dart board all land on the same spot on the target. That doesn’t mean the darts have
landed on the bull’s eye, but at least they are landing on the same spot again and again. A valid
measure would be one where repeated darts thrown at the dart board sometimes hit the bull’s
eye, but the darts may be scattered all over the target. But a reliable and valid measure would be
one where darts thrown at the target consistently strike the bull’s eye. (Note that measures may
be reliable but not valid. Measures may also be valid but not reliable. And they may be neither,
which means the darts are not striking the target at all but instead landing all over the adjacent
wall.)
89
Figure 5-3: Dart board as metaphor for precision, reliability, and validity of measure by Christina B. Castro, “Dart board,”
2008, Flickr creative commons, CC BY-NC 2.0
5.3.3 Applying concepts and measures: Some measures of regime type

To circle back to the discussion raised at the beginning of this chapter, the concept of regime has
been a perennial focus of political science since antiquity. Regime, or the collection of rules by
which political authority is organized in a society, is a locus of political power. Scholars also
believe that variation in regime types over time and space can help with understanding outcomes
such as individual well-being and societal prosperity. 9 This chapter began by examining how
Aristotle sought to conceptualize his observations of political authority, settling on the concept of
“constitution” which we today refer to as “regime”. Early attempts to operationalize and
conceive of measures for regime focused on the number of leaders in power and in whose
interest they ruled. Political scientists at present have conceived of myriad measures for regime
type. This section will examine two different measures which present examples of ordinal and
interval measures.
Professor Barbara Geddes of the Political Science Department at the University of California,
Los Angeles, offers one ordinal measure for understanding the diverse group of countries in the
world which are commonly referred to as authoritarian regimes, or nondemocracies. (We can
think of a democracy most simply as a country where there are free and fair elections; a
nondemocracy is where these are absent.) For Geddes, nondemocracies include everything from
9
See, for example, Przeworski, Adam et al. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-
Being in the World, 1950-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
90
North Korea under the Kim family to Brazil under military dictatorship. Looking at the sheer
diversity of nondemocracies in the world, and narrowing her focus to the twentieth century,
Geddes devised several categories for dictatorships of the world. The categories she devised
were personalist, military, single party, and hybrids of these three categories. 10
Table 5-4: Geddes types of nondemocracy (Example of a nominal measure)
Type of dictatorship Description

Personalist Rule by a single person
Example: Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, 1980-2017
Military Rule by military leaders
Example: Turkey, 1960-1965; military coup in 1960 and general in
power through 1965
Single party Rule by a single political party
Example: People’s Republic of China under the Chinese Communist
Party, 1949-present
Hybrid May be combinations of two or three of the above categories
Example: North Korea under the rule of the Kim family, Workers’
Party of Korea, and North Korean military since 1953
This ordinal measure for dictatorship offers a first cut at classifying a very diverse universe of
cases. There are qualitative differences between the categories constructed by Geddes, for
example whether political leadership is concentrated in a single person, the military, a political
party, or some combination of these three. Note that there isn’t any rank ordering of these types
of nondemocracies on any dimension. Because of this, it is not possible to consider whether, for
example, a greater concentration of leadership in fewer individuals correlates with greater wealth
concentration in the country. Geddes’ measure strives to be exhaustive, as she argues that every
nondemocracy in the world during the twentieth century might fit into one of these four
categories. There may be questions, however, about the reliability of this measure. Might another
researcher, starting from scratch, categorize countries in the same way as Geddes? China, for
example, might be categorized as a personalist regime under Mao Zedong’s rule (1949-1976)
rather than a single party regime.
A second example of a widely used interval measure of regime type is known as Polity IV. This
measure considers the entire range of regime types, from highly undemocratic to so-called
consolidated democracies of the world. 11 It places observations on a scale that ranges from -10
(for highly undemocratic) to +10 (for highly democratic). As the Polity Project webpage notes,
10
See Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Resaerch Design in Comparative
Politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
11
Consolidated democracy refers to those democracies where democratic institutions such as elections, checks-
and-balances within government, and civil society, are robust and democracy is widely accepted as the ideal kind
of political authority.
91
“[Polity IV] envisions a spectrum of governing authority that spans from fully
institutionalized autocracies through mixed, or incoherent, authority regimes
(termed "anocracies") to fully institutionalized democracies.
“The ‘Polity Score’ captures this regime authority spectrum on a 21-pont scale
ranging from -10 (hereditary monarchy) to +10 (consolidated democracy). The
Polity scores can also be converted into regime categories in a suggested three-
part categorization of ‘autocracies’ (-10 to -6), ‘anocracies’ (-5 to +5 and three
special values: -66, -77 and -88), and ‘democracies’ (+6 to +10).” 12
The Polity datasets are publicly available and downloadable from the internet. Scores are
available for 151 countries ranging over the period 1800-2017, with annual observations for each
country. Countries are placed each year on this -10 to +10 scale depending on the degree of
political competition observed, citizen participation, and constraints on the executive. The higher
a country scores on these dimensions, the higher its Polity Score. Canada, for example, has a
Polity Score of +10 over the period 1946-2017.
Note that this measure rank-orders countries along some underlying dimension of
“authoritarianism,” where those countries which are deeply authoritarian are closer to -10 while
those which are further from authoritarianism, or more democratic, are closer to +10. While the
Polity Score is an interval measure of regime type, the excerpt above also suggests that this can
be an ordinal measure with the following categories: autocracy, anocracy, and democracy.
Polity Score today is considered one of the most precise and reliable measures for regime type.
Its validity, like the validity of most every measure for regime type, is debated. By one scholar’s
count, there exist today at least nine interval measures of democracy alone. 13 The endeavor
continues. Projects which culminate in measures such as Polity Score are valuable for putting
words and measures to concepts which we know are deeply consequential.
Key Terms/Glossary
• Concept mapping: Method for identifying and visualizing dimensions and indicators of
concepts and relationships between concepts
• Concepts: These are the building blocks of theories and are labels or language to
describe objects, events, practices, and ideas in social life; complex concepts are further
broken down into dimensions and indicators
12
The Polity Project is available online at http://www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.html. This website contains
downloadable datasets and codebooks.
13
Pemstein, Daniel, Meserve, Stephen A., and Melton, James. 2010. “Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable
Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type,” Political Analysis 18: 426-449.
92
• Conceptualization: The process of creating concepts by applying the powers of
observation and imagination
• Dimension: One aspect of a concept; for example, the concept of “government” might be
broken down into multiple dimensions such as “centralization of power,” “levels of
bureaucracy,” and so forth
• Indicator: Observable aspect of a concept
• Interval measure: A measure for a variable in which observations fall along a scale with
standard units
• Nominal measure: A measure for a variable in which observations are classified into
two or more categories
• Operationalization: Process of defining a concept in measurable terms; identifying
variables (or indicators) that are relevant for understanding and observing a concept in
concrete ways
• Ordinal measure: A measure for a variable in which observations are rank ordered
• Ratio measure: An interval measure with a true zero value
• Regime: The system and rules, either formal or informal, for organizing government in
each society; a binary approach to regime is to divide governments into democracies and
nondemocracies
• Reliability: When there is a low probability of error for a proposed measure
• Validity: When a proposed measure is a meaningful measure of its underlying concept
Summary
Summary of Section 5.1: Conceptualization in political science

This section explored what a concept is and the process by which we create concepts. It began
with the conceptualization of “regime” (going back to Aristotle). Then it drilled down into how
social scientists think about concepts, i.e., dimensions and indicators of concepts. It explored
dimensions and indicators of the concept “regime”. The final section discussed one method,
concept mapping, that is useful for identifying concepts and, by extension, dimensions,
indicators, and research questions.
Summary of Section 5.2: Operationalization

This section continued the example of conceptualizing “regime” and explored how to
operationalize the concept. It walked through various considerations in data collection such as
“What kind of data should I collect?”, “Why am I collecting this data?”, and “How can I collect
this data?”. It concluded with some common data sources for research in the social sciences.
Summary of Section 5.3: Measurement

This section discussed types of measurement such as nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio
measures. It considered criteria for the quality of measures such as precision, reliability, and
validity. Finally, the chapter introduced commonly used measures of regime type and discussed
each in turn.
93
Review Questions
1. What is the primary difference between operationalization and measurement?
a. Measurement is about deciding whether a variable should be measured as
nominal, ordinal, interval or ratio while operationalization is about defining a
concept
b. Operationalization is about deciding whether a variable should be measured as
nominal, ordinal, interval or ratio while measurement is about defining a concept
c. Operationalization centers on defining a concept, while measurement is focused
on describing an abstract idea
2. Concept mapping is the method for identifying and visualizing dimensions and indicators
of concepts and relationships between concepts
a. True
b. False
3. Which of the following statements best describes conceptualization?
a. The process of creating concepts by applying the powers of observation and
imagination
b. Process of defining a concept in measurable terms; identifying variables (or
indicators) that are relevant for understanding and observing a concept in concrete
ways
c. Method for identifying and visualizing dimensions and indicators of concepts and
relationships between concepts
4. Reliability is when a proposed measure is a meaningful measure of its underlying concept
a. False
b. True
5. When a proposed measure is a meaningful measure of its underlying concept. Which
term does this phrase best define?
a. Validity
b. Reliability
c. Efficiency

1. Identify three concepts central to the study of politics.
2. What is concept mapping?
3. Taking a concept from Question 1, operationalize it and suggest one measure for that
concept.
4. What does it mean when a measure is reliable?
5. What does it mean when a measure is valid?
6. Power is often referred to as the currency of political science. What are some dimensions
of power?
7. How might you operationalize a concept such as power?
8. What are different types of measures and what are each type good for? If you had to
conceive a measure for “power”, what kind of measure would you use and why? Assess
the reliability and validity of that measure.
94
General resources on research methods:
• Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research
Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
• Hoover, Kenneth. And Donovan, Todd. 2014. The Elements of Social Scientific
Thinking. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
General resources on data sources:

• University of Michigan. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
(ICPSR). Available online at
https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/instructors/icsc/datasets.jsp
• UCLA Library. Research Guides, “Social Statistics and Data,” Available online at
http://guides.library.ucla.edu/data/sources
Measuring regime type:

• Center for Systemic Peace. The Polity Project. Available online at
http://www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.html
• Freedom House. Freedom in the World. Available online at https://freedomhouse.org/
Concept mapping:
• Novak, Joseph D. and Alberto Cañas. 2006. “The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and
How to Construct Them.” Available online at
https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/projects/ireport/articles/concept_maps/The%20Theor
y%20Underlying%20Concept%20Maps.pdf
95
Chapter 6 - Elements of Research Design
Kau Vue, M.A., M.P.A.
Chapter Outline
• Section 6.1 Introduction: Building with a Blueprint
• Section 6.2 Types of Design: Experimental and Nonexperimental Designs
• Section 6.3 Components of Design: Sampling
• Section 6.4 Components of Design: Observations
Section 6.1: Introduction: Building with a Blueprint
Learning Objectives
● Understand the role of design in conducting research
● Identify the purposes of conducting research
Observations of the world may lead to research questions and theories about how the world
works. For instance, political participation is a topic that political scientists try to understand. A
common research question is why people choose to vote for certain presidential candidates. It is
possible that multiple theories can explain the same phenomena. As one can already guess, there
are multiple answers to this question. One theory suggests that individuals vote for those who
share the same party identity because sharing the same party provides an information shortcut,
showcasing that the candidate possibly shares the same views on issues.
96
Another answer to this question is that individuals most likely vote for the incumbent president
when the economy is doing well and are less likely to do so when the economy is not doing well.
If there are multiple answers to a research question, how can researchers showcase why their
answer is the answer to be considered? In other words, why the theory put forth is the best
answer. In this chapter, we provide you with the tools to provide evidence to support your
answer to your research question.
One way to assess the validity of a theoretical explanation is to understand the research design.
Research design is an action plan that guides researchers in providing evidence to support their
theory. Another way to think of research design is as a blueprint. When building a house, it is
necessary to first create a plan that will provide the foundation for what you are doing. How big
will the house be? How many bedrooms should the house have? What kinds of material should
be purchased? Like a blueprint, research design is a critical first step that allows decisions to be
made in advance. Because it can be exciting to try to find evidence to support your explanation
of the world, there is a tendency to jump immediately ahead into data collection and analysis;
however, research design comes before gathering data. There are multiple first decisions to
make. We will cover different aspects of design, including purpose, types, sampling, and
observations.
Suppose you were interested in the outcome of the 2016 presidential elections. In 2016, Hillary
Clinton and Donald Trump were the candidates for their respective parties. Clinton was the
heavily favored candidate with many national polls predicting she would win. While she did
receive the most votes, Donald Trump won the most electoral votes to become the 45th
president. How might you go about understanding the result of the election? To proceed, a
researcher must first try to figure out the purpose of the research that will be conducted.
Ultimately, the type of design will then be determined by its purpose. Three such purposes of
research are exploration, description, and explanation.
Exploratory research sounds exactly like what you might be thinking—to explore. It could be
possible that a phenomenon has recently occurred, and you do not know what is going on. On the
other hand, it is possible that you do know what is going on, but you are trying to observe it so
you can better understand it. In both instances, exploratory research seeks to understand an issue,
trying to figure out what is going on. In the case of the election, researchers might try to figure
out what rules exist to allow an individual to win a presidential election by way of Electoral
College votes rather than the popular vote. Since multiple polls were being conducted, how were
they conducted and where were they conducted? Who was included in these polls? What
circumstances led to individuals to choose one candidate over the other?
Just as exploratory research is associated with exploration, descriptive research is associated with
description. Descriptive research builds upon exploratory research to provide further information
about a phenomenon. Exploratory research may assist researchers in identifying the many
variables while descriptive research can expand on this by collecting additional information on
these variables. Additionally, descriptive research can provide information about relationships
97
between identified variables, often called correlational research. Descriptive research might ask
what kind of people were most likely to vote for Trump and for Clinton? Which of these voters
were most likely to turn out to vote? Were there voters who changed their minds at the last
minute? These questions attempt to describe what was going on.
While exploratory and descriptive provide answers to “what,” explanatory research seeks to
explain “why.” Explanatory research goes further than just explaining the relationships between
variables and providing predictions, it tells us which variable likely led to a certain outcome.
What caused the outcome to occur? In instances such as the 2016 election, it can be difficult to
try to determine cause and effect but through research design we might try to create similar
conditions and try to make causal inferences.
Section 6.2: Types of Design: Experimental and Nonexperimental

Designs
Learning Objectives
● Identify components of experimental designs
● Read and interpret research design notation
● Differentiate between experimental and nonexperimental designs
● Understand why nonexperimental designs are used
In political science, the “gold standard” is an experimental design. An experimental design can
help determine the effect of the independent variable or the treatment on the dependent variable
or the outcome because the treatment can be isolated as the likely cause. Comparisons are made
between the experimental group and the control group to see if the outcomes are different.
Because random assignment ensures that the two groups are the same and the only difference is
the treatment, researchers can make the conclusion that the difference in the outcomes of the
groups is likely due to the treatment. Because of these factors, an experimental design is best
suited for the purposes of explanatory research to establish causality.
To help with understanding research design, it is common to utilize notation to provide a visual
depiction of the design. We will utilize the following notation as borrowed from Trochim and
Donnelly (2005).
98
Figure 6-1: Notation is useful to present a visual representation of research design. The figure displays the notation for an
experimental design
The selection of individuals into groups is denoted by R (random assignment) or NR (nonrandom

assignment). Observations are denoted as “O” and “X” is the treatment. One line of notation will
refer to a single group. Two lines denote two different groups, three lines denote three groups,
and so on. The notation from left to right denotes the passage of time. Using this notation, we
can generally classify designs into experimental and nonexperimental. We will talk about the
experimental design first and then nonexperimental designs.
There are three crucial components: random assignment, manipulation of the treatment, and the
existence of a control group. Generally, there are two groups, an experimental group and a
control group. The experimental group will be administered a treatment while the control group
will not be administered a treatment. The control group is supposed to be what the experimental
group would look like if the experimental group was not given the treatment.
Comparisons are then made between the two groups using pretests and posttests to determine the
effect of the treatment on outcomes. Random assignment refers to the placement of cases into
control and experimental groups in an unbiased manner such that the likelihood of any case
being placed into groups is exactly the same. With random assignment, we can be assured the
groups are equal to each other, or any reason that we might think they are different is removed. If
there are differences, it is due to chance.
The pretest establishes a baseline, allowing us to understand how things are before the treatment
is implemented and the posttest provides us with information about outcomes after the treatment.
If this sounds familiar, it is because an experiment in political science is similar to an experiment
performed in a science lab!
99
Figure 6-2: A variation on the classic experiment, this is an
experimental design that does not contain a pretest.
Experimental designs can vary in relation to the classic example presented. One variation of the
classic example is not administering a pretest. This can be due to fears that taking a pretest can
affect the results or it just may be that a researcher is unable to administer a pretest. This makes it
difficult to attribute the varying outcomes to the treatment but can still allow conclusions about
causality because a control group does exist.
Figure 6-3: The Solomon 4-Group Design is an experimental

design that combines the classic experiment with the posttest only
design.
Another variation to the classic experiment is the introduction of groups beyond the traditional
two groups that tries to address the effect of a pretest on outcomes. This variation is known as a
Solomon 4-Group Design. As the name indicates, there are four groups. Two are experimental
groups and two are control groups. One experimental group and one control will have a pretest
and posttest and the remaining groups will not be pretested. In this way, comparisons can be
made between the two pairs and it can be determined as to whether the pretest had an effect on
results.
As we move further away from the classic experimental design, the ability of researchers to
establish causality diminishes. Nonexperimental designs may lack random assignment into
groups, the ability of the researcher to control the treatment, a control group, or all of these
100
characteristics of an experiment. Ethical concerns may lead to the implausibility of implementing
an experiment. For instance, to determine the effect of a treatment, a researcher may decide to
randomly assign individuals into a control group and an experimental group. The experimental
group receives a treatment that could cure a serious illness but those in the control group who
could benefit from the same treatment are denied it. In a case such as this, ethical concerns may
prevent the random assignment of the treatment and instead provide the treatment to all who are
willing to be treated.
Figure 6-4: Quasi-experiments may attempt to be similar to an experiment but, in this particular case, lacks random assignment
into groups.
Quasi-experimental designs try to approximate experiments but lack a key component, random
assignment. For instance, in a nonequivalent 2-group comparative design, cases are divided into
two groups, one an experimental group and a comparison group that is meant to be like a control
group. Unlike an experiment, assignment into groups is not random. It is possible that
individuals self-selected into groups. In a design known as matching, cases are matched together
on multiple variables with the only variation being that of the treatment variable. While it may be
possible to match on identified variables, it is difficult to discern whether variables that are not
observed are also evenly distributed. Because the formation of the two groups was not through
random assignment, we do not know if the groups are equivalent to one another. Variables that
are unaccounted for could potentially be what is truly affecting the outcome rather than the
treatment; thus, it is difficult to establish the effect of the treatment on the outcome we are trying
to explain.
In the example above, it is possible that individuals who chose to be part of the experimental
group to receive the life saving treatment were more likely to be individuals who exhausted all
other types of available treatment and are now utilizing the remaining treatment as a last resort. It
could also be possible that those in the treatment group wanted to take part in the study because
they have a greater zest for life. Because such characteristics might not have been apparent in the
matching phase of the study, this might have an added effect that was not accounted for.
101
Figure 6-5: A nonexperimental design with pre-test and a post-test, but no
control group.
Difficulty in establishing causality can also result when there lacks a comparison group.
Researchers might be able to administer the treatment but are unable to have a control group for
multiple considerations. In this case, the same group acts as a control for itself. Because the
pretest is administered before the treatment, it provides us with the results of the outcomes before
a treatment. It is then compared with the posttest to see if there were any changes between the
two.
Comparison is made within-group. If there are differences, it may be attributed to the treatment.
This design can be problematic because threats to the validity of the design exist. Without a
control group, it can be difficult to attribute the outcome to the treatment because it could simply
be due to maturation or normal growth. In other words, the results would have been the same
without the treatment. It could also be due to the administration of a pretest that primed cases to
be better prepared for the next test.
While there are multiple designs that exist, the purpose of your research will often dictate the
best design to use for your study. If you are trying to establish causality, experimental designs
will likely be the design of choice. Experimental designs have internal validity, thus ensuring
that you can provide causal conclusions about an independent variable’s effect on an outcome.
When it is not feasible and the reasons as to your research study are not establishing causality,
but instead gathering information, nonexperimental studies that do not necessarily require
random assignment or a control group will serve your research goal just as well.
Section 6.3: Components of Design: Sampling
Learning Objectives
● Understand the logic of sampling
● Differentiate between samples and population size
● Identify the difference between probabilistic and non-probabilistic sampling
While we have provided you with major designs, it is important to be able to understand
additional components of research design. Understanding these components will help you to
102
build on existing designs so you can create blueprints that are specific to your research. Sampling
is an important component to consider because it can be difficult to obtain data on every single
case in the population. How your sample is created and who is part of your sample have
implications for the conclusions you can make about your results.
An important component of research design is determining who will be part of the study, the
number of cases, and how cases will be selected into the study. The first step is to determine
what population you are interested in. The population refers to all cases that could be a part of
the study. For instance, if you are interested in why people vote for certain candidates, the
population of interest is all adults who are 18 years or older and are registered to vote.
It would not make sense for your population to include those who are not registered to vote
because your question is specific to voter behavior. A case would be a single unit of the
population identified, or an adult who is 18 years or older and is registered to vote. If everyone
who is part of this population could also be a part of the study, the evidence for the theory put
forward would be quite convincing; however, this would be difficult to obtain. Not only would it
be very costly, it might not necessarily be feasible due to time constraints because there are more
than 130 million voters in the United States. While there is a temptation to try to include every
possible case, one thing to consider is that this is still just a snapshot in time. What do we mean
by snapshot in time? All cases might be included for one election year but there are several
elections a year along with many years! In the end, the population might just really be a sample
in the context of time.
The next step would be to try to figure out the number of cases to include that will still provide a
convincing argument to support the theory. According to the law of large numbers, we do not
necessarily need to include every single case to provide a convincing argument. Rather than the
entire population, the study will likely be based on a sample. We need to provide a sample, or a
selection of cases from the population, that is large enough that we can approximate the
population values we are seeking. The law of large numbers tells us that when we provide a large
enough sample that is also representative of the population, it will lead to the results that are
close to the results if we collected data on all the cases in the population.
When sampling, another characteristic that we may be looking for is representativeness. It can be
argued that the value of the sample is only meaningful in that it can help us draw conclusions
about the population we want to know more about. To figure out representativeness, we need a
sampling frame. The complete sampling frame is a list of all those in the population. This list
might contain information about the characteristics of the population we are interested in. For
our sample to provide us with results that can tell us about the population, we need the sample to
be representative, or to be similar to that of the population. If you are interested in learning about
voters in the United States, only including voters from California will not be very helpful. This
sample can provide you with information about voters in California, but not necessarily about
voters in the United States. To ensure representativeness, you can select from the sampling frame
who it is that should be included in your sample.
103
There are two ways to sample cases, one of which, if done properly, will produce representative
samples and one that will not reflect representativeness. Probability sampling will produce
samples that are more likely to be representative of the population as opposed to nonprobability
sampling. Probability sampling requires the use of random selection to place cases into a sample.
Examples of probability sampling are simple random sampling, stratified sampling and clustered
sampling. Nonprobability sampling uses nonrandom processes to select cases to be part of the
sample. Examples of nonprobability sampling include convenience sampling, quota sampling,
and snowball sampling.
Probability Sampling
Simple random sampling is argued to be the best approach in selecting a sample. In a simple
random sample, each case has an equal chance of being selected to be part of the study. Through
simple random sampling, your sample is much more likely to be reflective of your population. A
simple way to think of random sampling is putting names in a hat and drawing names out of a
hat. This means that if you were interested in studying political science students and there were
1,000 political science students, each student would have a 1 in 1,000 chance of being chosen to
participate in your study.
Stratified sampling is similar to random sampling but there may exist a concern over what the
sample looks like. There may be a concern about the inclusion or exclusion of certain
characteristics. To ensure proportional representation, or ensuring the sample has similar
characteristics to that of those in the population, stratified sampling will take into consideration
such characteristics and ensure the sample looks like the population. Therefore, we need to know
these characteristics relative to the population before selecting the sample.
For instance, if not having enough people who are racially representative of the population is a
concern, when sampling you will ensure that twenty percent of the sample is African American
and twenty percent of the sample identifies as Latinx because that is the proportion they make up
in the population of interest. This is known as a proportionate stratified sample. A
disproportionate stratified sample oversamples certain groups that otherwise make up a smaller
portion of the sample. Oversampling allows researchers to provide greater insight into these
groups and might not be able to do so if few are part of the sample.
A clustered sample takes into consideration that a simple random sample may not be feasible
because the population may be quite dispersed. If your population is all U.S. adults who are
registered to vote, it might be difficult to acquire a list of every registered voter and then
randomly select individuals to be part of your survey. If administered in person, imagine how
difficult it would be to fly from one part of the country to the next all for an interview! Instead,
the researcher will narrow it down by selecting areas or clusters and then randomly sampling
from these areas. For example, a researcher may randomly select states and from within those
states, select counties, then cities, and then precincts. Once precincts have been randomly
selected, all those who are in those precincts will be measured.
104
Nonprobability Sample
While random sampling was noted earlier as the ideal way to create a sample, nonprobability
samples also serve a purpose. Nonprobability sampling may be chosen due to the small number
of cases available. Nonprobability sampling includes convenience, quota, and snowball
sampling. Convenience sampling refers to selecting cases that are available. It is almost like not
sampling at all because there are no criteria to be part of the sample other than being part of the
selected population and a willingness to be part of the sample. An example of selecting cases to
be part of a convenience sample is asking individuals who are walking out of a polling place to
answer questions.
Quota sampling refers to selecting cases according to a quota or a set number of cases.
Researchers may set a fixed number and go about creating a sample that will meet that number.
Quota sampling can also be similar to stratified sampling when the researcher is trying to ensure
the sample looks similar to the population, meaning that those in the sample are similar in
characteristic to the population.
In a snowball sample, initial cases are identified to be a part of the sample. It can be one case, or
it can be more. These initial individuals will then provide you with referrals of other individuals
who could be a part of the sample. Eventually, the number of cases you have will increase
through referrals of individuals who you are able to get to be part of the sample. The sample size
will pick up momentum as you are able to accumulate more referrals, gaining more mass and
picking up more cases along the way. Utilizing this sampling method is especially useful when
working with a hard-to-reach population. For instance, if you were to understand the
circumstances in which individuals become homeless, a snowball sample would be helpful
especially because a list of homeless individuals does not exist.
Probability and nonprobability sampling are methods for choosing cases to be part of a study.
We generally utilize samples because trying to collect information from the population can be
difficult. The law of large numbers tells us that we do not necessarily need to include every case
to provide us with the data we are looking for when the size of our sample is sufficiently large
enough. In creating our sample, there are additional rules of thumb to follow. One general rule is
that if the population being studied is small--equal to or less than 100--the best strategy is to
include all the cases. Another general rule is to always aim for a larger sample because
nonresponse, or not receiving a reply from a case, is a likely possibility.
Section 6.4: Components of Design: Observations
Learning Objectives
● Understand the difference between primary and secondary data sources
● Identify ways in which primary data can be collected
● Differentiate between cross-section and longitudinal data
105
A critical component of research design is to consider how and when observations will be
obtained, or in other words data collection. Researchers must take into consideration the way
data will be collected as well as the timing of data collection. Data collection methods can fall
under primary sources or secondary sources. Data from secondary sources refers to existing data
collected by someone else. Researchers do not need to collect the data again and will instead
compile the variables they need for their studies.
For political scientists, a readily available secondary data source is called the American National
Election Studies (ANES). The ANES is a collaboration between Stanford University and the
University of Michigan. It provides researchers with information about such topics as voting
behavior and electoral participation.
Another source of data is the General Social Survey (GSS). The GSS is collected by the National
Research Center and the University of Chicago. The data covers topics that might be of concern
to social scientists. For instance, psychological well-being and morality are topics the GSS
collects data on.
Secondary data sources can be useful and help save researchers time and money; however, the
researcher is constrained by the topics collected by the institutions collecting the data. The data
available might not necessarily be helpful in answering your research question, so you might
have to collect your own data.
Unlike secondary sources, primary sources refer to original data collected by the researchers.
Generally, this entails the creation of a data collection instrument. Although obtaining original
data may be more time consuming than utilizing secondary resources, one advantage of original
data is that it will ensure that the data you get is what you are looking for.
For instance, you might be interested in elections at the local level but the ANES does not ask
questions about local elections. You can collect your own data by creating a survey instrument
that is specific to elections at the local level. Data can be obtained through multiple approaches.
One way to obtain data is to create and administer a survey. Surveys often contain closed-ended
questions, limiting the responses that can be provided. An example of a question that might be on
a survey is “Are you a registered voter?” or “Did you vote in the last election.” The answer
choices to the questions are predetermined. In these two instances, answers that can be provided
might be “yes,” “no,” or “not sure.” Interviews are another way to acquire data. In interviews,
questions are often open-ended, allowing the cases the opportunity to provide detailed answers
which go beyond the limited responses available on a survey. An example of an interview
question might be something like, “Why did you register to vote?” or “Why did you choose to
vote in the last election?” Questions such as these allow respondents to provide more detailed
answers.
106
Related to what data is collected is when data will be collected. How many observations will you
be taking? Will it be just a one-shot survey, or will you be administering the survey over the next
few years? A one-shot survey is deemed a cross-sectional study whereas the latter would be
considered a longitudinal survey. In a cross-sectional study, observations are taken at a single
point in time. A longitudinal study will have multiple observations over a specified length of
time with the same individuals. Longitudinal studies can be either panels or cohort studies. A
panel study is often a sample of cases that are likely to be representative of the population. Cases
in a cohort study are likely to share characteristics or experiences. Multiple observations are
collected from these cases over time. A repeated cross-section is a combination of cross-sectional
data and multiple observations; however, observations may not be collected from the same cases.
This type of research can help provide insight into established patterns.
In this chapter, we provided an overview of research design. You should be able to recognize
research design notation and be able to understand the components of the design as well as
differentiate experimental designs from nonexperimental designs. In providing you with this
overview, we have given you a foundation to begin building designs of your own. Similar to the
use of secondary sources to acquire data, pre-existing designs may not fit the needs of your
study. When this occurs, you may have to adapt them to what you are trying to accomplish with
your study. If making causal inferences is what you are trying to achieve, your foundation should
be the design that will allow you to establish causality--the classic experiment. From this initial
design, you can then determine whether you can randomly assign individuals to groups or how
many times it would be possible to take observations. And from this starting point, you can also
determine if you have enough information to implement an experiment. If you do not, then you
might reconsider and instead start with an exploratory study that can help you identify possible
causes of an outcome.
Key Terms/Glossary
● Control group: one group in an experimental study that is not administered the treatment
● Cross-sectional study: study in which observations are taken at a single point in time
● Descriptive: descriptive research builds upon exploratory research to provide further
information about a phenomenon and may also contain information about relationships
between variables
● Experimental design: an experimental design can help determine the effect of the
independent variable or the treatment on the dependent variable or the outcome because
the treatment can be isolated as the likely cause
● Experimental group: one group in an experimental study that is administered the
treatment
● Explanatory: explanatory research seeks to explain “why” an outcome occurs
● Exploratory: exploratory research seeks to understand an issue, trying to figure out what
is going on
● Longitudinal study: studies in which observations are taken at multiple points in time,
often over a specified length of time
107
● Nonexperimental design: designs that are not experimental due to lack of random
assignment, control group, or the ability to manipulate the treatment
● Non-probabilistic sampling: sampling technique that does not utilize probability to
place cases into a sample
● Population: all cases that could be a part of the study
● Primary source: original data collected by researcher
● Probabilistic sampling: sampling technique that utilizes probability to place cases into a
sample
● Random assignment: the placement of cases into control and experimental groups in an
unbiased manner such that the likelihood of any case being placed into groups is exactly
the same.
● Representativeness: characteristic of a sample to reflect what the population of interest
looks like
● Research design: an action plan that guides researchers in providing evidence to support
their theory
● Sample: a selection of cases from the population
● Secondary source: existing source of data that has been collected by other researchers
● Treatment: the cause of an outcome and is able to be manipulated the be researcher in an
experiment
Summary
Summary of Section 6.1: Introduction

The first step in conducting research is not to data collection but making decisions about how
you will go about providing evidence to support your theory. This first step is known as research
design and can be compared to the blueprint of a house. The research design you utilize will be
dependent on the purpose of your research: exploration, description, and explanation.
Summary of Section 6.2: Designs

The gold standard in political science is the experimental design. In the classic experiment, a
treatment (or the independent variable) is administered to a group called the experimental group
and observations of the experimental group are compared to a control group. This design is ideal
for establishing causality, but experiments are not always feasible. Nonexperimental designs may
be used to try to also allow the researcher to draw causal inferences, but it does not have key
components of experiments: random assignment, manipulation of the treatment, and a control
group.
Summary of Section 6.3: Components: Sampling

When conducting research, there is usually a population of interest that is identified. While it
may seem ideal to be able to include every case of the population in the study, this is not exactly
feasible. Instead, cases from the population are pulled out to create a sample of the population,
either through probabilistic or non-probabilistic sampling methods. To provide results that can be
108
generalized back to the population, it is ideal to have a large sample and a sample that reflects
the characteristics of the population.
Summary of Section 6.4: Components: Observations

An additional research design component is collecting observations. Observations can be
collected through multiple tools, but two popular tools are surveys and interviews. Another
aspect of observation collection that needs to be considered is how often observations will be
collected. When observations are collected only once, this is called a cross-section. When
observations are collected multiple times on the same cases in a set time period, this is known as
longitudinal data.
Review Questions
1. Research design is analogous to
a. drawing a blueprint
b. eating a bowl of soup
c. spinning a spiderweb
d. casting a wide net
2. Which of the following is NOT a purpose for conducting research?

a. experimentation
b. explanation
c. description
d. exploration
3. What is the key component in an experiment that differentiates it from a non-experiment?

a. random assignment
b. treatment
c. observation
d. control group
e. sampling
4. The design deemed to be the gold standard in political science research is experimental
design.
a. True
b. False
5. Taking observations from the same group of people over an extended length of time is
NOT called
a. a cross-sectional study
b. a cohort study
c. a longitudinal study
d. a panel study
109
1. Look for an article that interests you. Utilizing research design notation, identify the
design being utilized by the authors and explain the components of the design.
2. Find a poll completed by any outlet, from newspapers to news channels to research
organizations. From this poll, evaluate what it is the individual or organization is trying to
do. Decide if this is a representative sample of their population of interest or not and
defend your answer.
3. Practice: Identify a political phenomenon that you are interested in. Put together a design
that will allow you to go about studying this phenomenon. First, consider what an
experimental design would ideally look like and then consider what is plausible.

Websites
● Boundless. n.d. “Types of Research | Boundless Psychology.” Accessed November 3,
2019. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapter/types-of-
research-studies/.
● DeCarlo, Matthew. 2018. “Sampling” in Scientific Inquiry in Social Work. Retrieved
from https://scientificinquiryinsocialwork.pressbooks.com/chapter/10-0-chapter-
introduction/. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 License
● Trochim, William. (n.d.) Web Center for Social Research Methods. Retrieved from
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/index.php
Articles
● Abutabenjeh, Sawsan., and Raed Jaradat. 2018. “Clarification of Research Design,
Research Methods, and Research Methodology: A Guide for Public Administration
Researchers and Practitioners.” Teaching Public Administration 36(3): 237-258.
● Bell, David C., Erbaugh Elizabeth B., Serrano, Tabitha, Dayton-Shotts, Cheryl A., and
Montoya Isaac D. 2017. “A comparison of network sampling designs for a hidden
population of drug users: Random walk vs. respondent-driven sampling” Social Science
Research 62 (February 2017): 350-361.
● Gorard, Stephen, Roberts, Karen, and Chris Taylor. 2004. “What Kind of Creature is a
Design Experiment?” British Eduational Research Journal 30(4): 577-590.
● Guterbock, Thomas M., Diop, Abdoulaye, Ellis, James M., Holmes, John Lee, Le, Kien
Trung. 2011. “Who needs RDD? Combining directory listings with cell phone exchanges
for an alternative telephone sampling frame” Social Science Research 40(3): 860-872.
● McDermott, Rose. 2002. “Experimental Methods in Political Science.” Annual Review of
Political Science 2002(5): 31-61.
Books
● De Vaus, David. 2001. Research Design in Social Research.
● Chambliss, Daniel F. and Russell K. Schutt. 2019. Making Sense of the Social World:
Methods of Investigation. 6th Edition.
● Jhangiani, Rajiv. S., Chiang, I-Chant A., Cuttler, Carrie, and Dana C. Leighton. 2018.
Research Methods in Psychology. Retrieved from
110
https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods4e/. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 License. CC BY-NC-
SA 4.0 License
Contributor(s)
● 1st edition, 2020: Kau Vue, M.A., M.P.A.
○ Peer reviewers: Josh Franco, Ph.D.
References
Trochim, William, and James P. Donnelly. 2006. The Research Methods Knowledge Base.
Atomic Dog.
Gorard, Stephen. 2013. Research Design: Creating Robust Approaches for the Social Sciences.
SAGE Publications.
Shadish, William R., Cook, Thomas D., and Donald T. Campbell. 2001. Experimental and
Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Cengage Learning.
111
Chapter 7 - Qualitative Methods
Charlotte Lee, Ph.D.
Chapter Outline
• Section 7.1: What are qualitative methods?
• Section 7.2: Interviews
• Section 7.3: Documentary sources
• Section 7.4: Ethnographic research
• Section 7.5: Case studies
Section 7.1: What are qualitative methods?
Learning Objectives
● Define qualitative research methods
● Understand the strengths and limitations of qualitative research methods
Political science is the study of power, political authority, conflict, and negotiation, all of which
can be approached through deep observation and analysis. In understanding these central foci of
political life, there is a rich body of work employing qualitative research methods. Qualitative
research refers to data collection in which the focus is on non-numerical data. This can include
texts, interviews with individuals or groups, observations recorded by researchers, and many
other sources of knowledge. Despite the quantitative turn that political science has taken in
recent decades, qualitative approaches have provided powerful insights into many important
research questions.
112
Early political thinkers from Aristotle to Sun Tze were deeply analytical in their approach to
understanding the world, and they did so by observing and recording phenomena through non-
numerical means. Aristotle, in Book IV of Politics, discusses possible types of regimes in the
world and argues that polity, a combination of democracy and oligarchy, is the best possible kind
of government given his observations of human behavior. 14 Today, political scientists employ a
variety of qualitative research methods to understand topics as varied as the dynamics of
revolution, campaign strategies, and the impact of political change on communities and
individuals.
Qualitative methods can also be part of a larger methodological toolkit used by political
scientists. Some scholars rely on “mixed methods” to answer their research questions about the
world. Mixed methods utilize both qualitative and quantitative methods. For example, consider
the research question, “Under what conditions might Texas become a purple state within the
United States, i.e., a place that is a mix of Democratic and Republican voters?” Quantitative data
may tell researchers about trends in voter registration and turnout over time. Qualitative
methods, such as interviewing Texans in focus groups or town hall-style meetings, will
illuminate how voters perceive their political choices and political future. The combination of
both qualitative and quantitative data can overcome deficiencies in relying solely on one or the
other.
The methods employed by qualitative researchers are myriad, and we will review several of them
in this chapter (Table 7.1). Because politics are inherently relational, one starting point in the
qualitative method toolkit is talking to people. This can take the form of interviews, either of a
single individual or group of people. Documentary sources are also a valuable source of
knowledge. Documents may be collected from repositories such as libraries or archives or when
visiting relevant sites such as the offices of government bureaus or advocacy organizations.
Ethnographic research involves “going into the field,” or conducting fieldwork at one or more
research site(s) to address a research question. Fieldwork can include interviewing and document
collection and analysis, but it is also a means for a researcher to collect and record observations
about their subject.
For example, a Canadian political scientist interested in understanding US southern border policy
might be well-served by conducting fieldwork on the US-Mexico border and observing the
interplay between US government authorities and citizens on both sides of the border. There are
also exciting research possibilities in the digital realm, and digital ethnographers are exploring
political dynamics in this space. Some researchers, for example, are mapping the political
communication strategies carried out on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
All these methods can come together in the building of case studies, which are in-depth
14
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Aristotle: Politics,” available online at https://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-
pol/#H10. Accessed August 2019.
113
examinations of particular cases to unravel one of the most challenging aspects of political
science research, causal mechanisms. Each of these methods will be explored in a separate
section in this chapter.
Table 7-1: Summary of Qualitative Methods
Qualitative Method Brief description
Interviewing Conversation with one or more people to collect data on a research

question
Documentary sources Texts collected from field sites, relevant organizations, libraries,
archives, etc. Archival research, which often focuses on
documentary sources, is especially powerful for collecting primary
sources, or those documents which are original sources of
knowledge on a topic
Ethnographic research Site-specific collection of data; often referred to as “fieldwork”;

researcher records observations “in the field” and may also rely on
interviews and collection of documents
Digital ethnography Collection of data in the cybersphere and observation of activity

mediated by computers or related information technologies,
including virtual reality
Case studies Focused examination of an event, place, or individual to explore

dynamics of analytical interest; case studies may employ some or
all of the above methods
Strengths and limitations of qualitative methods

There are many reasons to employ qualitative methods in research. First and foremost,
qualitative methods are useful for identifying causal mechanisms. Recall the scientific method
emphasizes the formulation of testable hypotheses from broader theories. These hypotheses
imply explanatory (independent) and outcome (dependent) variables. Linking explanatory and
outcome variables is a causal logic. This causal logic is essential, as it tells a “story” that
connects concepts. Qualitative methods, particularly case studies, can be powerful in
illuminating causal mechanisms. If we think of theories as stories, qualitative methods are a way
to knit together a narrative in a coherent and plausible way to help us know whether a story is
true or false.
For example, scholars in international relations have long observed that modern democracies
tend not to go to war with one another. 15 Collecting data on regime type (democracy versus
15
See Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).
114
nondemocracy) and outbreak of war has yielded the finding that democracies over the past
century have been unlikely to go to war with one another. But why is this? Statistical analysis
may yield a significant correlation, but this is not causation. Qualitative methods such as detailed
case studies of two democracies in a crisis situation can help uncover what led to reconciliation
rather than war. This kind of “process tracing,” or uncovering the process by which events
unfolded, is a strength of qualitative approaches.
A second strength of qualitative methods is producing more fine-grained and nuanced analysis
than widely used quantitative methods such as regression analysis. Whereas regression analysis
attempts to identify trendlines in collected data, fitting a straight line through a cloud of data
points, qualitative methods are interested in the messiness of observed data. Qualitative methods,
in short, are interested in depth over breadth. For example, it can be illuminating to see that race
is a key correlate of party affiliation in the US, but interviewing individuals can help to drill
down into how racial identity might shape whether a person identifies as a Democrat,
Republican, or independent. 16 Again, qualitative methods are helpful for understanding the
“why” by digging into the details.
It is important to note the shortcomings of qualitative methods, too. They are typically very
resource intensive. Downloading publicly available data from the Internet on is generally less
costly than arranging interviews or making research plans to live in, say, Catalonia for a semester
(no matter how delightful the latter would be). Qualitative methods can be resource-intensive,
both in terms of time and money expended. Related, the resource-intensiveness of some
qualitative methods, such as case studies, implies that a researcher may only generate one or a
few of them to answer a research question. Suppose a researcher wanted to compare the quality
of governance around the world. One quantitative starting point for exploring this topic would be
to download the World Banks’ Worldwide Governance Indicators. 17 A more in-depth, qualitative
approach might be reading World Bank and other organizations’ reports on select countries’
governments. Crafting case studies of even two countries’ quality of governance might take
weeks, months, or years of careful data collection and writing. This would yield an “n” of two --
and here again the tradeoff is depth over breadth.
A final critique of qualitative methods relates to the difficulty replicating findings. If one gold
standard in hypothesis testing is replicability of research findings, this is challenging to achieve
16
See Pew Research Center, “Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups,” March 20, 2018. Available
online at https://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/.
Accessed August 2019.
17
These indicators have been tracked for 215 countries and territories over the period 1996-2014 and involve
quantifying six different governance indicators. They are available for download from
https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/worldwide-governance-indicators.
115
with many qualitative methods. The observations that a researcher might record while embedded
in pro-independence organizations in Catalonia, Spain, are very difficult to confirm by
subsequent researchers. Even if a researcher were to have access to the same fieldwork sites,
they will likely face very different circumstances. Compounding this are issues with access to
research sites. A researcher conducting fieldwork in China and visiting government bureaus may
share their findings and conclusions in research papers, but due to the closed nature of the
government in China, other researchers are unlikely to have access to the same government
bureaus. This also relates to the reliability of inferences reached solely from qualitative research.
If other researchers cannot confirm the data used for a research paper, how reliable are the
findings? One workaround is employing mixed methods to triangulate across multiple sources
and findings. This can at least demonstrate that the findings within a study have internal validity.
Section 7.2: Interviews
Learning Objectives
● Explore interviewing as a qualitative research method
● Consider approaches to interviews such as interviewee selection, structured versus
unstructured interviewing, and recording data
Simply put, interviews are conversations with relevant human subjects for the purposes of
answering a research question. There is great variation in how to approach interviewing. Key
decisions for researchers revolve around interviewee selection, whether to structure interviews or
leave them unstructured, and whether to record what is said during an interview.
Interviewee selection hinges on identifying those individuals who possess the knowledge and
experience to best answer a research question. Consider again the research question, “Under
what conditions might Texas become a purple state?” Texas is a huge state, with a population in
the tens of millions. To select interviewees whose responses might provide leverage in answering
this research question, there are two approaches. Ideally, researchers would randomly select and
then interview a sample of Texans which represents the diversity of the Texas electorate. For
example, they might try to locate a mix of interviewees who represent the racial, ethnic, gender,
religious, educational attainment, urban/rural, and other relevant dimensions of diversity among
the state’s voters.
More realistically, especially for solo researchers just getting started, a second approach to
interviewing is more network-based. This is nonrandom selection and involves interviewing
Texans whom a researcher knows directly or through networks. A researcher might consult their
address book for everyone they know who lives in Texas, then contact those Texans for
interviews. Then the researcher might ask those contacts or initial interviewees to introduce them
to other Texans who might want to discuss their political views. In this way the researcher can
116
interview subjects with relevant knowledge, but the entire sample of interviewees may not be
representative.
One significant upside of nonrandom interview selection is potentially having greater rapport
with the interview subjects. When a researcher already has a relationship with an interviewee or
has been introduced by a trusted third party, interviewees are more likely to be candid in their
responses. Independent researchers often have to bow to reality and rely on nonrandom selection
with the aim of getting as close to the ideal as possible. This opens the interview data to
challenges of unreliability, but even with nonrandom information from interviews, the data
obtained is more nuanced in terms of how voters actually think about their party affiliation and
insights into trends in voter attitudes in Texas.
Figure 7-1: Conducting an interview in Cibeuying, Jawa Barat, Indonesia by

Ikhlasul Amal, photo taken on June 7, 2011, “Interview Scene,” CC BY-NC 2.0
A second consideration is whether to conduct structured versus unstructured interviews.

Structured interviews are interviews conducted with a pre-written set of questions which are read
word-for-word to each interview subject. There is no deviation from these prescribed questions
as the interview progresses. Structured interviews will yield higher levels of consistency and
comparability in the data collected. For this reason, structured interviews are recommended if a
team of researchers is fanning out to interview many subjects. Structured interviews are also
recommended for less experienced interviewers who may benefit most from careful preparation
and having a prepared script for an interview.
An unstructured interview is one where the researcher has a general sense of the topics or
questions the interview will cover, but the intention is to ask follow-up questions in “real time”
as the interview progresses. This is the most flexible approach to an interview. It also creates the
most space for discovery and in-depth exploration of a topic during an interview. Unstructured
interviews are ideal when a researcher is in the initial stages of exploring a research topic. On the
other hand, unstructured interviews are also very demanding of the interviewer. The interviewer
must be mindful of probing an interesting topic as much as possible while balancing constraints
117
such as being mindful other topics to cover, the time allocated for the interview, the energy
levels of the interview subject, and other such considerations. Unstructured interviews run the
risk of wandering too far off topic that important topics may not be discussed.
Interviews may also be semi-structured. These are interviews where the researcher has a
prepared list of questions to ask, but the researcher is also willing to deviate from this list when a
question piques their curiosity or demands additional follow-up questions not on the initial list.
Semi-structured interviews seek to combine the benefits of structured and unstructured
interviews and maximize, on the one hand, preparation by the researcher and, on the other hand,
flexibility when encountering unexpected information.
A third consideration is whether and how to record interviews. Imagine the interview as a key
site for data collection in the research project. Data from the interview must be collected and
recorded, then merged with data collected from other interviews. This pooled data can then be
analyzed or referenced when writing up research findings. A key initial step is for the researcher
to decide how to collect data from the interview itself. There are a variety of ways to do this, but
all data collection requires consent from each interview subject.
The simplest technology is pen and paper: write notes during the interview or immediately after
to recall as much as possible of the conversation. A second option is recording the interview,
either just a sound recording or video. Then, to analyze or reference content from the interview,
it is important to transcribe the recording into text. This can be done using transcription software
or manually transcribing a replay of the recording. Having a text of recorded interviews is critical
to search the interview for key words or quotes that may inform research findings.
Which is recommended, handwritten notes or recording an interview? Handwritten notes have

the advantage of setting and interview subject more at ease, as subjects tend to be more
restrained when they know they are being recorded. Some interview subjects, especially public
figures, may be more used to having their comments recorded and hence more readily grant
permission. If the subject matter is sensitive, handwritten notes are likely the better choice.
Recording the interview has the benefit of greater accuracy and allows the interviewer to focus
more on guiding the interview rather than juggling notes and interview questions at the same
time.
At some point, the data collected from an interview will need to be entered into a larger database.
This can be as simple as creating a document or spreadsheet with notes from all the interviews
conducted or using one of many open source software packages available for entering and
analyzing interview data.
A note on conducting research on human subjects

Research which involves engaging with people, or human subjects, must be accompanied by
protections for those subjects. This is critical for ensuring the integrity of the research project and
118
the credibility of both the researcher and any sponsoring institutions. Research with human
subjects will be addressed in the chapter on ethics in research.
Section 7.3: Exploring documentary sources
Learning Objectives
● Understand the variety of documentary sources available to researchers
● Explore documentary data analysis techniques such as content analysis
Documentary sources can contain a wealth of information to address a research question.

Documents here are treated as primary sources, or original source material that can help with
answering some aspect of a research question. Documents need not be created at the time or
place that we are interested in studying, however. For example, a scholar may have a research
project focused on the codification of human rights post-World War II. A key document in this
research would be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). 18 The researcher could
locate a copy of the UDHR online or when visiting the United Nations headquarters in New
York City, but it isn’t necessary for them to have access to the original document. In other
research projects, however, access to original documents may be critical, for example actual
ballots if the research concerns election fraud. But even in those cases, resource constraints and
difficulties with procuring access to field sites may be insurmountable. Reports by credible
organizations may substitute as enough documentary sources.
18
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed 10 December 1948, available online at
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
119
Figure 7-2: An example of a government-issued documentary
source by wundercapo, photo taken on May 9, 2005, “1904 Sarah
Connelly birth,” CC BY-NC 2.0
This is an exciting time to draw on documentary sources because of the digitization of many
documents. This has vastly increased accessibility to documents and decreased costs to
researchers. The U.S. National Archives, for example, contains a wealth of documents that are
cataloged on its website. Researchers may access digital documents in the National Archives
through databases such as ProQuest, which is often available through university and community
college libraries. 19
There are limits to documentary sources, as some political phenomena are not inherently text
based. The rise of the bureaucratic state heralded the rise of documents in our lives, but many
political activities are non-textual. Some examples include illicit activities such as human
trafficking or smuggling. Yet so long as the illicit world must interact with the modern state at
some point, for example in banking activities or as subjects of government reports, there is often
some oblique way of obtaining documents to understand these seemingly undocumented topics.
The variety of documentary sources available to a researcher will be a function of the

researcher’s resources, access, and creativity. Some researchers are fortunate to have deep
research pockets and can travel to far flung sites to collect documents. Compounding this is
access to key sources, for example relationships with government officials in relevant
bureaucracies. More typically, researchers will run into limits when it comes to resources and
access. In these cases, and generally, a researcher must think creatively about which documents
to search for to address a research question.
One step is getting to know librarians and, related, the databases and archives that are available
through libraries. Librarians often know about collections of documents, archives, or other
repositories of key documents. To continue the U.S. National Archives example mentioned
above, researchers today do not need to make costly trips to Washington, D.C., to search the
Archives, as many documents are now available through subscription-based databases such as
ProQuest.
Another step is understanding the organizational landscape in which a given research topic is
embedded. To continue the previous example of researching the codification of human rights,
one starting point would be to explore UN archives, some of which are digitized and available
online. Another tack would be to contact law school libraries to examine their collections. A
researcher could also probe whether there are human rights lawyer associations which might
19
See, for example, the extensive listings on Congressional documents on the US National Archives website
(https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/index-alpha/c.html). Many of these documents are available
in digital form via ProQuest’s Congressional Research Digital Collection. This collection includes Congressional
documents such as proposed legislation, laws, committee hearing transcripts, and committee reports.
120
have libraries open to researchers. Nongovernmental organizations active in human rights law
might also have relevant documents, such as reports or recommended language for draft laws in
various areas of human rights.
After collecting documents, there are several ways to utilize them in research. One is drawing
out key sections in collected documents to reference or quote from when writing up research
findings. This can be as low-tech as manually highlighting passages on paper copies of
documents and flagging them with sticky notes or going fully digital and using text-recognition
software to search for key terms and passages on digital versions of documentary sources.
Another way to utilize collected documents is to conduct content analysis on keywords or

phrases. This can be as basic as counting the frequency a term appears in a set of documents. For
example, if a researcher wanted to examine whether there was change over time in the
codification of the human right to asylum, they might collect as many human rights-related
treaties as possible from the UN, say during the period 1945 to 1985, then count the frequency of
“asylum” in the documents and see whether this changed significantly over the chosen period of
time. Quantitative methods such as factor analysis can also be used to determine whether there
are underlying “factors” or common explanatory variables, which might explain the variation
observed across documents. 20 The actual mechanics of such techniques are beyond the scope of
this chapter, but it is worthwhile knowing that documents may be analyzed and utilized in ways
that go beyond their service as sources of quotable material.
Section 7.4: Ethnographic research
Learning Objectives
● Understand the basics of ethnographic research - What, why, and how
● Consider the emerging field of digital ethnography
All research is immersive, but ethnographic research is particularly immersive because it calls
upon the researcher to situate themselves in the social contexts of their research subjects.
Ethnographic research calls on the researcher to be a close observer of the practices, language,
culture, beliefs, and other aspects of the life of their research subjects. Ethnographic research
ranges from observing the political strategies of candidates on the campaign trail in small town
20
An excellent online introduction to factor analysis can be found by Dr. Richard B. Darlington (and translated into
several languages), available online at http://node101.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/factor.htm (Accessed Sept.
2019)
121
USA to living in remote Chinese counties and interviewing officials on their local development
strategies. 21
What is ethnographic research? As noted by Reeves et al., “Ethnography is the study of social
interactions, behaviours, and perceptions that occur within groups, teams, organisations, and
communities.” 22 Ethnography calls upon the researcher to engage in “thick description”
(attributed to Clifford Geertz) of a research site. Accordingly, ethnography has its roots in
anthropology. Ethnographic fieldwork became prominent during the early twentieth century,
when scholars such as Bronislaw Malinowski sought to document in detail the lives of people in
remote locales such as Papua New Guinea and the Canary Islands. The purpose then, as now,
was not just to collect detailed notes on the lives of others, but also to answer questions raised by
social science theories about human behavior, motivations, and organization.
Why engage in ethnographic research? Ethnographic research is a powerful tool for building a
more holistic understanding of hitherto unknown or very superficially understood phenomena in
the social world. For solo researchers, ethnographic research is a particularly demanding and
resource intensive form of data collection. Yet, it has the potential to accomplish something that
is highly valued in research: depth of understanding. When presented with a world event as
complex as, say, the economic rise of China in the late twentieth century, conducting
ethnography at sites where there is a great deal of economic dynamism can be illuminating and
anchor our understanding of large, abstract global events. China’s economic “miracle” is due to
decisions made by individuals, in response to incentives embedded in their social context.
Ethnographic fieldwork, more than any other research tool, helps generate knowledge about
these individual- and society-level factors.
How does a researcher conduct ethnographic research? First and foremost, a researcher must
record their observations when engaged at their research site (or sites). These observations may
take the narrative form of diary entries, for further distillation when writing up research findings.
Observations may be captured in a more analytical way from the outset of the ethnographic
research, for example noting categories of behavior and adding annotations accordingly. To take
the example of a researcher immersed in a Chinese township, their field notes might be sorted
into observations about economic life, political life, social life, and so forth. These initial
recorded observations form the bulk of ethnographic data. Second, ethnography may also draw
on the qualitative tools noted earlier in this chapter such as interviews and documentary sources.
Researchers may shift away from pure observation to conduct interviews with research subjects
in order to collect data in a more focused way. And documents can supplement (or call into
21
See Richard F. Fenno, Home Style: House Members in Their Districts (Scott Foresman & Co., 1978) and Yuen
Yuen Ang, How China Escaped the Poverty Trap (Cornell University Press, 2017), respectively.
22
Reeves Scott, Kuper Ayelet, Hodges Brian David. “Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography.” BMJ
2008; 337 :a1020
122
question) observations. In all, the goal is to build a rich portrait of a place and its people in order
to address an underlying research question.
Digital Ethnography
Given vast changes in information and communication technologies (ICT), new sites for
ethnographic research have emerged in recent decades. Whereas traditional ethnography relied
on researchers being situated in a physical space and observing social life there, digital
ethnography challenges these notions of physical immersion. Instead the researcher is immersed
in relevant digital spaces such as online chat rooms and other social media platforms where
information is exchanged. Digital ethnography asserts that there is a “materiality of digital
worlds, which are neither more nor less material than the worlds that preceded them.” 23
The Internet, like all social spaces, is deeply political. Government documents are uploaded to
government webpages in “transparency” initiatives, and societal actors in turn upload leaked
government documents to sites such as Wikileaks to further challenge official narratives. Myriad
groups now create Facebook pages, build virtual communities, and push out information via such
twentieth and twenty-first century information and communication technologies (ICT). Political
parties seek to reach constituents via various social media platforms, and US president Trump
has drawn attention to the power of “tweeting” via the online communication tool Twitter. Far-
right political movements located in wealthy democracies around the world have created global
networks through a variety of social media platforms. These platforms have created the capacity
for rapid and far-reaching mobilization of like-minded individuals.
All of this creates a rich opportunity for research and analysis. Researchers engaging in digital
ethnography seek to record and identify patterns in the digital worlds of their research subjects.
A researcher attempting to map the political strategies of groups supporting Brazil’s president
Jair Bolsonaro might subscribe to the Facebook pages of various groups supporting the president
and his political party, for example. She might record the messages that are posted on such sites
and conduct content analysis on the kinds of vocabulary employed. Or she might examine photos
uploaded to these Facebook pages to determine the tactics used to signal who “belongs” to such a
movement.
In short, new ICT offer many new -- and potentially lower cost -- possibilities for conducting
research on important political topics. An important debate animating the study of social
movements and state-society relations concerns the nature of Internet-based technologies: to
what degree are they “liberation technologies” versus tools for continued repression by
23
Horst, Heather A. and Daniel Miller. 2012. “Introduction.” in Digital Anthropology (London and New York:
Berg), p. 4.
123
authoritarian governments? 24 Researchers engaging in digital ethnography are opening up a rich
trove of data sources to begin to weigh in on this and other debates.
Section 7.5: Case studies
Learning Objectives
● Define a case study as a qualitative research method
● Understand the process of case selection
What is a case study?

In the words of political scientist John Gerring, a case study is “an intensive study of a single
unit for the purpose of understanding a larger class of (similar) units.” 25 A case study is above all
else an in-depth description and exploration of an event, person, group, and/or place. In addition
to deep analytical description, case studies may be critical and present evidence to build counter-
narratives to the dominant narrative of an event. The “intensive study” of a case study may stem
from utilizing all of the methods described above, from interviewing subjects to engaging in
ethnographic fieldwork, in order to build a comprehensive understanding of the case.
Quantitative data may also be marshaled to deepen the case study. The goal of crafting a case
study is to draw inferences from that case to test theory.
The first issue the researcher must address is case selection. First, given the definition above, a
case study should be relevant to the theory or hypothesis that a researcher wishes to test. For
example, if a researcher wanted to investigate how mineral wealth might contribute to poor
governance outcomes in a country, it would not make much sense to select a country without
mineral wealth. (To be concrete, the Democratic Republic of Congo might be a good country
case to explore, but Haiti less so. However, to make the inferences from that case study more
valid, a researcher might want to consider crafting a second case study on a country similar to the
DRC, but without sources of mineral wealth, to explore whether governance outcomes differ
across the two cases.)
Second, the selected case should be representative of a larger group. This is to head off criticism
that the chosen case is too much of an outlier to provide leverage on understanding the general
24
See, for example, Diamond, Larry. 2010. “Liberation Technology.” Journal of Democracy (Vol. 21, No. 3), pp.
69-83, and Mounk, Yascha. 2018. “Can Liberal Democracy Survive Social Media?” New York Review of Books.
Available online at https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/04/30/can-liberal-democracy-survive-social-media/
25
Gerring, John. 2004. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” The American Political Science Review,
98(2), 341-354.
124
phenomena of interest. To take up the previous example, if a researcher wishes to study the DRC
as a case of the so-called “resource curse,” in what ways is the DRC like other mineral-rich
countries? In which ways does it differ? And are those differences so significant that the DRC is
not representative of the “class” of mineral-rich countries that the researcher would be exploring
with this case study? Of course, every place and person is sui generis, but an important
consideration is whether there are such enormous differences that a case is an outlier rather than
representative.
Third, case selection hinges on practical considerations. Is this a case for which there exists a
robust body of secondary literature to build a baseline of preliminary knowledge? Does
understanding the case require language skills? Does the researcher know which organizations or
individuals to contact to collect information? Do they have access to those organizations and
individuals? Will building the case study require conducting fieldwork? If so, for how long, and
how much might this require in research funds?
Case studies are a powerful tool in the qualitative methods toolbox. They are a means to
investigate the causal processes which are often lost in traditional quantitative approaches such
as regression analysis. They are also empirical and hence testing theory against what is
transpiring in the “real” world. They demand a researcher to think creatively and holistically
about a subject, then dive fully into learning as much about it as possible.
Key Terms/Glossary
• Case study: Focused examination of an event, place, group or individual to explore
dynamics of analytical interest and/or test theory
• Digital ethnography: Ethnographic research conducted online or in cyberspace, where
activity is mediated by computers, information technologies, and/or virtual reality
• Ethnographic research: Research conducted at a relevant research site (or sites), often
referred to as “fieldwork,” whereby the researcher records observations and may conduct
interviews and collect documents or other data
• Interview: A conversation with one or more people to obtain information related to a
research topic or question. Interviews may be structured, unstructured, or semi-structured.
• Qualitative research: Refers to data collection in which the focus is on non-numerical
data
Summary
Summary of Section 7.1: What are qualitative methods?

This section introduced qualitative methods as a suite of methods that generate non-numerical
data. Qualitative methods can include interviews, documentary sources, ethnographic researcher,
and case study-building. Qualitative methods are most powerful for the depth of understanding
125
they can generate on a topic, especially the leverage they provide for grasping causal
mechanisms. Drawbacks to these methods include their resource-intensive nature and questions
about representativeness and reliability.
Summary of Section 7.2: Interviews

Interviews are a key source of data on political life. This section discussed interviewee selection
and other considerations such as whether and how to record interviews. It also discussed the
difference between structured, unstructured, and semi-structured interviews.
Summary of Section 7.3: Exploring documentary sources

There are a variety of documentary sources that researchers may locate to collect data on their
research topic. Documentary sources are also amenable to different kinds of analysis, some
quantitative, such as content analysis and factor analysis.
Summary of Section 7.4: Ethnographic research

Ethnographic research is immersive research in which researchers conduct observation-based
research and collect data at one or more sites relevant to their research question. Digital
ethnography is a newer kind of ethnography in which researchers explore the digital world to
address research questions.
Summary of Section 7.5: Case studies

This section introduced case studies, which are analytical, in-depth analyses of an event, person,
group, and/or place with the purpose of providing insights on a research topic or to test theory.
This section explored aspects of case selection as well as practical considerations such as access
to relevant data sources.
Review Questions
1. Qualitative research refers to data collection in which the focus is on non-numerical data.
a. True
b. False
2. Site-specific collection of data; often referred to as “fieldwork”; researcher records
observations “in the field” and may also rely on interviews and collection of documents.
Which of the following terms matches this definition?
a. Ethnographic research
b. Interviewing
c. Documentary sources
d. Case studies
3. What is a strength of qualitative methods?
a. useful for identifying causal mechanisms
126
b. useful for conducting statistical analyses
c. useful for identifying correlations
d. useful for conducting causal analyses
4. Interviews are conversations with relevant human subjects for the purposes of answering
a research question
a. True
b. False
5. Fill in the blank: Another way to utilize collected documents is to conduct content
analysis on ______ or phrases.
a. Keywords
b. Passwords
c. Keystones
d. Passages

1. What are some of the major advantages of qualitative research? What are some
drawbacks of qualitative research?
2. What are some of the considerations a researcher should have in mind when planning
interviews?
3. What are some potential places to locate documentary sources?
4. Compare and contrast ethnographic research and digital ethnography.
5. What are some characteristics of a strong case study?
6. Consider a research topic of interest to you. What are some qualitative methods you
might employ to learn more about this research topic?
7. Consider a research topic of interest to you. Who might you interview to learn more
about this topic? Think big! Who might be “dream” interviewees, and what are some
ways to contact them? Be pragmatic! Who are some individuals you might contact?
8. Consider a research topic of interest to you. What are some relevant case studies you
might explore before committing to in-depth research on a single case study? Recall the
criteria for a strong case study.

Documentary Sources:
● United Nations Archive: https://archives.un.org/
● U.S. Congressional Record: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record
● U.S. Library of Congress Catalog: https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/searchBrowse
● U.S. National Archives Immigration Records:
https://www.archives.gov/research/immigration
● Frisch, Scott A., and Sean Q. Kelly. 2012. “Political Science and Archival Research.”
127
Doing Archival Research in Political Science, 35.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sean_Kelly8/publication/255780364_Doing_Archiv
al_Research_in_Political_Science/links/5d1cf76992851cf44062e65c/Doing-Archival-
Research-in-Political-Science.pdf#page=47.
Ethnography/Fieldwork:
● Brian A Hoey. "A Simple Introduction to the Practice of Ethnography and Guide to
Ethnographic Fieldnotes" Marshall University Digital Scholar (2014). Available online
at: http://works.bepress.com/brian_hoey/12/
● Maria Heimer and Stig Thogersen, eds. Doing Fieldwork in China. University of Hawai’i
Press (2006).
● Scott Reeves, Ayelet Kuper, and Brian David Hodges. “Qualitative research
methodologies: ethnography.” BMJ 2008; 337 :a1020
Digital Ethnography:
● Digital ethnography research centre. RMIT University. Available online at https://digital-
ethnography.com/
Case Study:
● Robert H. Bates, Avner Greif, Margaret Levi, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, and Barry R.
Weingast. Analytic Narratives. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1998).
● Gerring, John. 2004. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” The American
Political Science Review, 98(2), 341-354
128
Chapter 8 - Quantitative Research Methods and
Means of Analysis
Masahiro Omae, Ph.D. and Dino Bozonelos, Ph.D.
Chapter Outline
• Section 8.1: What are Quantitative Methods?
• Section 8.2: Making Sense of Data
• Section 8.3: Introduction to Statistical Inference
• Section 8.4: Interpreting Statistical Tables in Political Science Articles
Section 8.1: What are Quantitative Methods?
Learning Objectives
● Understand what quantitative methods are
● Learn Steven’s Four Scales of Measurement
● Master the differences between cases, coding, and variables
As mentioned in Chapter Two, quantitative methods are defined by Flick (2018) as “research
interested in frequencies and distributions of issues, events, or practices by collecting
standardized data and using numbers and statistics for analyzing them”. Again, what this means
is that political scientists solve puzzles using mathematical analysis or complex mathematical
measurement. This differs from using qualitative methods where the main source of evidence
129
used to solve a puzzle is the use of words. When using such methods, we often turn to appraising
evidence in the form of words. As mentioned in Chapter Seven, we can use interviews and focus
groups, archival research, and even digital ethnographies to understand the world. Given this,
quantitative methods are simply the use of numbers to draw conclusions rather than words.
In political science, statistical analyses of datasets are the preferred quantitative method. This
mostly developed from the behavioral wave in political science where scholars became more
focused on how individuals make political decisions, such as voting in each election, or how they
may express themselves ideologically. This often involves the use of surveys to collect evidence
regarding human behavior. Potential respondents are sampled using a questionnaire constructed
to elicit information regarding a subject. When using voters as an example, we may develop a
survey that asks citizens if they are registered to vote, if they intend to vote, and which candidate
for an office they might vote for. Respondent choices are then coded, usually using a scale of
measurement, and the data is then analyzed often with the use of a statistical software program.
Scholars probe for correlations among the constructed variables for evidence in support of their
hypotheses on the topic.
However, quantitative methods extend beyond statistical analyses of survey datasets. Formal
models are one such method. In formal models, political scientists attempt to understand
representations of political institutions and political choices in the abstract. Relying on logic and
causality, these scholars express relationships among concepts and variables in mathematical
terms. They often use precise statements, written as equations, where the results can be
replicated, almost always through a mathematical proof. Modeling the behavior of individuals or
institutions has proven quite helpful in political science, particularly in the applied side of
political science: public policy making. In this field, elected officials and subject matter experts
work together to develop programs that can benefit society. Often the effect of a program is not
discernible until the program has been implemented. However, formal models could help in
projecting or predicting the effects of the program before implementation, which can help
policymakers immensely.
Given that quantitative methods in political science often includes the analysis of data sets, it is
often referred to as large-n analysis, where the “n” stands for number. Thus, we have an
analysis of a large number of cases, again often assembled as sets of data. Cases are the people,
places, things or actions (subjects) that are being observed in a research project. They are often
also the unit of analysis. Units of analysis the “who” or the “what” that you are analyzing for
your study. So, for large-n analyses of surveys, each case could consist of one respondent to the
survey, or one person. Alternatively, cases could include the recording of individual actions
130
taken. For quantitative analyses of institutions, cases could include people, such as senators or
representatives, or the decisions made by lawmakers and/or policymakers. 26
Keep in mind that cases and data are intertwined, but not the same thing. Each case can produce
numerous data points. For example, each respondent in a survey can answer multiple questions,
which could lead to large amount of data collection. In addition, in observational studies, where
researchers observe and record the actions of individuals, there can also be a plethora of data
points (Diez, Barr, and Cetinkaya-Rundel 2012). 27
As statistical analyses of datasets are the popular quantitative method in political science, it is
good to understand how such analyses work. First, it is important to understand that in some
analyses, words must be transformed into numbers. By this we mean that any responses provided
in surveys must be converted to numerical expressions, or value, for an analysis to take place.
We often refer to this as coding. Coding is essential for the creation of variables to analyze in
any quantitative research. A variable is defined by Hatcher (2013) as having “some
characteristic of an observation which may display two or more values in a data set”.
In other analyses, there may be no need to code. The data itself is already in numerical form and
forms the variable without any changes. An example could be a survey instrument that asks a
respondent if they donated money to a campaign and what was the amount. As campaign
donations is measured in dollars, there may be no need to code as the amounts represent
individual data points for that variable. 28 In other examples, respondents might be asked to rate
themselves or some item/activity on a scale of 1-5. Consequently, each response and
corresponding number could also be brought in directly, such as the campaign donations above.
Or researchers can recode the data points, in some cases changing the way the variable is
analyzed, or even create new variables entirely.
To better understand how variables work, we reference the four scales of measurement often
used by statisticians. In his book on data analysis, Hatcher (2013) recounts this classification
system, which is partially reproduced below in Table 8.1. These scales help researchers
determine which statistical techniques would be the most proper to use to analyze the
relationships between variables, which are all measured, coded and constructed differently,
26
Generally speaking, when it comes to the development of survey-based datasets, there should be somewhere in
the vicinity of 1,200 to 1,500 cases, or in this case respondents. Keep in mind that the lower the number of cases, the
harder it is to draw inferences from any analysis.
27
There is no limit to the number of data points that could exist within a dataset. However, most analysts agree that
there should be a sufficient number of data points and that enough variation exists for an analysis to make sense.
28
Sometimes numerical data such as the example above, campaign donations, may be recoded into ranges or levels.
This is commonly done with age, which becomes age ranges, and income, which becomes income levels.
131
Table 8-1: Steven’s Four Scales of Measurement
Type of Measurement Definition* Example
Nominal Scale Identifies the groups to which This is a variable that

a participant belongs; does classifies a respondent. An
not measure quantity or example could include
amount political party identification,
where the distance between
the variables is unimportant
Ordinal Scale Subjects are placed in This is a variable that is

categories, and the categories constructed from an ordinal
are ordered according to scale, or a ranking of
amount or quantity of the variables. An example could
construct being measured. include asking students on a
However, the variables are scale of 1-5 how liberal they
not equidistant from each might be. Ordinal variables
other. are normally constructed from
just one survey question, or a
single item. Thus, the distance
between the choices (1
through 5) are not necessarily
equal.
Interval Scale A quantitative variable that This is a variable that is

possesses the property of constructed from a Likert-
equal intervals, but does not scale, or when several survey
possess a true zero questions are used to create a
score, or multiple items. An
example would be asking
students to complete a
number of survey questions
regarding their ideology on
scales of 1-5. The responses
are totaled and divided by the
number of questions,
providing a single score on
where the student is
positioned ideologically.
Ratio Scale An interval quantitative This is a variable that has

variable that displays a true equal intervals between the
zero responses or scores, but also
includes a zero option which
indicates that no amount of
132
the construct has been
measured.
*definitions taken directly from Hatcher (2013)
Section 8.2: Making Sense of Data
Learning Objectives
● Identify different types of graphs
● Explain the measures of central tendency, including mode, median, and mean
● Understand measures of dispersion, including deviation, variance, and standard deviation
In political science research, some scholars are primarily interested in describing the world while
others are interested in explaining a particular phenomenon in the world. In other words, political
science research involves dual goals of description and explanation. It is important to note that
the craft of describing and explaining are interactive in nature, and they often feed to each other.
However, in most cases, we first have to know something about the world before embarking on
the task of explaining something that happens in that world. In this section, we will explore the
various techniques for summarizing the data.
Whether one is collecting original data or compiling a dataset based on existing data sources, the
first step is to organize the raw data into a more manageable format. Johnson, Reynolds, and
Mycoff (2020) suggest first convert raw data into a data matrix where each row represents a
unique entry and each column represents different variables (see Table 8-2). While this format of
data organization allows researchers to clearly see information about each observation and
compare a few observations, it is not the most suitable format for summarizing the data so that
the researcher can grasp on to the general information about the world she is interested in. So,
what is the correct format in presenting numerical data to describe the information that a
researcher is interested in? It all depends on the level of measurement of the variables (i.e.,
nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio) that your dataset includes.
133
Table 8-2
Source: Johnson, Reynolds, and Mycoff (2015)20)
It is important to note that representing data in a table format in itself was not the shortcomings
of Table 8-2. It was the type of information included in the table was the issue here in the
purpose of the table was to present summary information about the observed data here. Often, we
refer to this as descriptive statistics, or the numerical representation of certain characteristics
and properties of the entire collected data. The goal of the descriptive statistics table is to simply
present numbers that describe the cases, or that the basic features of the data in the study. Take a
look at Table 8-3 below. This is an example of a frequency table that includes frequency,
proportion, percentage and cumulative percentage of a particular observation. Even in this table,
some are more useful in terms of understanding one particular observation relative to the rest in
the world one is interested in describing and explaining. Proportion and percentage (measures of
relative frequency) allow us to easily make a comparison between different observations of the
same variable.
Table 8-3
Source: Johnson, Reynolds, and Mycoff (2015)020)
134
A frequency distribution for a quantitative variable could be presented in a graph format called
histogram. This is a type of graph here the height and area of the bars are proportionate to the
frequencies in each category of a variable. A histogram can be used for interval or ratio variable
with a relatively large number of cases. For categorical variables (ordinal or nominal), a
researcher can display the date in a similar fashion with a bar graph. A bar graph is a visual
representation of the data, usually drawn using rectangular bars to show how sizable each value
is. The bars can be vertical or horizontal. Given the nature of ordinal or nominal data, a bar graph
deals with a much smaller number of categories than its histogram cousin which deals with
interval or ratio data.
Figure 8-1: An Example of a Histogram
Figure 8-2: Example of a bar chart
135
If a researcher is interested in presenting a relationship between two variables in a graphic
format, a scatterplot would be an excellent choice. This form of graph uses Cartesian
coordinates (i.e., a plane that consists of x-axis and y-axis) to display values for two variables
from a dataset to display how one variable may influence the other variable.
Figure 8-3: An Example of a scatter plot
Social scientists, in general, and political scientists and economists are often interested in the
trend of a variable over time. A time-series plot can be used to display the changes in the values
of a variable measured at a different point in history. For this graph, the x-axis represents the
time variable (e.g., months, year, etc.) and the y-axis represents the variable of interest. Unlike
the scatterplot, each dot (observation) is connected to each other to display the changes in the
value of the variable of interest. We can, for instance, display the number of proposed
constitutional amendments in the United State since its finding or the number of women in the
U.S. Congress over the years. For the latter example, we can use two lines to differentiate the
presence of female representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senate by using two
separate lines on the same graphics plane.
136
Figure 8-4: An Example of a Time-Series Plot
As mentioned above, researchers can describe the data by relying on descriptive statistics.
Descriptive statistics are the numerical representation of certain characteristics and properties of
the entire collected data. One of the primary purposes of descriptive statistics is to “explore the
data and to reduce them to simpler and more understandable terms without distorting or losing
much of the available information”. (Agresti and Finlay 1997). The most frequently used
descriptive statistics are information that locates the center or middle of data distribution and
information about how data are distributed relative to the located center.
Measures of central tendency - the mode, median, and the mean - locate the center of a
distribution of a particular data set. In other words, a measure of central tendency identifies “the
most typical case” in that data distribution. First, the mode is the category with the highest
frequency. Second, the median is the point in the distribution that splits the observations into
two equal parts. It is the middle point of the data distribution when the observations are ordered
by their numerical values. If there are odd numbers of observations in the data, the single
measurement in the middle is the median. In the case of even numbers of observations, the
average value of the two middle measurements is the median. Finally, the mean or the average is
perhaps the most common way of identifying the center of a distribution. It is the sum of the
observed value of each subject divided by the number of subjects. It can be expressed more
formally:
𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴
𝑌𝑌 = (8.1)
𝑛𝑛
where 𝑌𝑌 represents the mean (the average), Σ means 𝑌𝑌1 + 𝑌𝑌2 + ⋅⋅⋅ +𝑌𝑌𝑛𝑛 (Ys are measurements of
each observation, and n represents the number of observations. For example, if there are 5
students with midterm exam scores of 80, 77, 91, 62, and 85, n = 5, and 𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴= 395 (add all the
test score). The mean score for this midterm exam is 395÷5, which is 79.
137
In addition to the measures of central tendencies, researchers often rely on the measure of data
variability to fully understand the data being utilized in their research. Perhaps the simplest
measurement of data variation is the range. The range is the difference in the value between the
maximum and minimum value. For example, if the highest midterm test score for a class was
100 and the lowest score was 70, the range for this particular dataset is 100 - 70 = 30. Another
related measurement of variability is called the interquartile range or IQR. The IQR is the
difference between the 75th percentile (where 75% of values are located under that point) and
the 25th percentile (where 25% of observations are below this point). In other words, the IQR is
the range where the maximum values it the third quartile (𝑄𝑄3 ) and the minimum values is the
first quartile (𝑄𝑄1 ) This measurement tells us how spread the middle 50% of the observations are.
Some scholars use a boxplot to graphically display, quartiles and the median
Another way of measuring the dispersion of data is by examining how distant the included
observations are from the mean. The distance of an observation from the mean is called the
deviation. Variance is simply defined as the average of the squared deviation. To calculate
variance, you first measure the distance of each observation from the mean and square them.
Add all the squared deviations and divide it by the number of observations (for population
variance) or divide it by the number of observations minus one (for sample variance). We denote
variance by using 𝜎𝜎 2 (pronounced sigma squared).
2 𝛴𝛴(𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖 − 𝜇𝜇)2
Population variance 𝜎𝜎 = (8.2)
𝑁𝑁
𝛴𝛴(𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖 − 𝑌𝑌)2
Sample variance ̂2 =
𝜎𝜎 (8.3)
𝑛𝑛−1
In equation (8.2), 𝜇𝜇(pronounced mu) is the population mean (or average) of a variable Y
and𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖 represents each observation. The equation is slightly different for the sample variance
(equation 8.3). Doing this by hand is rather tedious for data with a large population or sample. As
a result of many researchers rely on various statistical analysis software or spreadsheets like
Excel.
The standard deviation is the square root of the variance. It represents the typical deviation of
observation as opposed to the average squared distance from the mean.
𝛴𝛴(𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖 − 𝜇𝜇)2
Population standard deviation 𝜎𝜎 =� (8.4)
𝑁𝑁
138
2
Sample standard deviation 𝜎𝜎� = �𝛴𝛴(𝑌𝑌𝑛𝑛−1
𝑖𝑖 − 𝑌𝑌) (8.5)
The standard deviation is useful in further interpreting the data at hand. Typically, about 68% of
observations fall within the first deviation from the mean. What does that mean? Well, let us
consider the following example. Your political science professor tells you that the average/mean
score for an exam you just took was 85 with the standard deviation of 5. It means that the scores
of 68% of the students fall between 80 - the mean of 85 minus the standard deviation of 5 - and
90 - the mean of 85 plus the standard deviation of 5. It is important to note that an observation
deviates from the mean in both positive and negative directions.
Figure 8-5: Normal distribution Source: OpenIntro Statistics 4th Edition
As Figure 8.1 shows, about 95% of the data falls within the second standard deviation. It means
then that 95% of the exam scores should falls between 75 and 95. So if you have scored 96 on
this exam, what can we say about your score? Well, you could say that you did very well since
your score is beyond the second deviation, which means there are only less than 5% of people
who scored higher than you. Differently put, there are about 95% of your peers who scored lower
than your score.
In the next section, we will build on the content of this section and explore the means of testing
relationship.
Section 8.3: Introduction to Statistical Inference and Hypothesis

Testing
Learning Objectives
● Explain the properties of the normal distribution
● Explain the concept of z-score and calculate it
139
● Conduct a hypothesis testing (differences of means test)
● Differentiate between Type-I and Type-II errors
Statistical inference is defined as the process of analyzing data generated by a sample, but then
used to determine some characteristic of the larger population. Remember, surveys analyses are
the bread and butter of quantitative political science. As we are most likely unable to survey
everyone in each population, such as all registered voters in the U.S., we instead generate a
sample that allows to draw inferences or draw conclusions about the studied population. Samples
are useful as it allows scholars to test relationships between variables without having to spend
the millions needed to research a larger population.
Before we discuss the concepts of statistical inference and the means of testing relationships, let
us begin by revisiting Figure 8.1 located at the end of the previous section (Section 8.2). You
will notice that the curve is bell-shaped, with the exam scores peaking in the middle. This curve
is called a normal distribution where the value of the mean, median, and the mode is the same,
and data near the mean are more frequent in occurrence. It is safe to say that most variables that
political scientists are interested can be assumed to be normally distributed. But, what does this
curve represents? The height of the line represents the density of a particular observation.
Do you notice that the peak of the curve is located at the middle of the distribution? It means that
there are a lot more observations with the value of the mean or close to it than any other values in
a normally distributed variable. In other words, as you move away (or deviate) from the mean,
you will see fewer observations. It may make more intuitive sense using the test score example
from the previous section. The mean test score of 85 signifies that a large proportion of students
scored something close to 85. Recall the idea of standard deviation? Approximately 68% of the
scores will fall between the first standard deviation from the mean. In the above example, we
noted that 68% of students fall between the scores of 80 and 90.
Another thing you might notice about the normal distribution curve is that is symmetrical. Half
of the observations fall above the mean and the other half lies under the mean. Again, a normal
distribution has the same value for mean, median and mode, meaning that the value of the mean
is the most occurring and is also the middle value. Given this, the normal distribution is often
referred to as 𝑁𝑁(𝜇𝜇, 𝜎𝜎 2 ).
Sometimes, you may be interested in comparing certain values using different measures that are
designed to measure similar concepts. Let us take the SAT and ACT for this example (adopted
form OpenIntro Statistics). High school students who are interested in applying for four-year
colleges and universities, are required to complete at least one of these aptitude examinations.
Universities and colleges then use the SAT or ACT score, along with a combination of other
inputs, such as GPA and community service, to determine if a student’s application is accepted.
It is important to note that the SAT is scored out of 1600 and that the ACT is scored about 36.
For example, say Carlos took the SAT and scored a 1300, and Tomoko took the ACT and scored
a 24. How can you compare and determine who has performed better? Well, one way is to
140
standardize the scores if certain statistics are available: the mean and the standard deviation.
With the mean and standard deviation along with the values of interest (in this case the test
scores of Carlos and Tomoko), we can calculate the Z-score, which tells us the number of
standard deviations that a particular observation falls above or below from the mean.
𝑥𝑥−𝜇𝜇
Z-score 𝑍𝑍 = (8.6)
𝜎𝜎
In Equation 9.6, x represents an observation you are interested in. The mean is represented by
𝜇𝜇and 𝜎𝜎denotes the standard deviation of the dataset. So, in order for us to be able to compare the
score of Carlos and Tomoko, we first calculate z-scores for both and compare them. We need the
information below as well to accomplish this task.
Table 8-4
Statistic SAT ACT
Mean (𝜇𝜇) 1100 21
Standard Deviation (𝜎𝜎) 200 6
Carlos took the SAT and scored 1300 so his z-score is:
1300−1100
𝑧𝑧 = = 1.
200
Tomoko took the ACT and scored 24 so her z-score is:
24−21
𝑧𝑧 = = 0.5.
6
These statistics mean that Carlos’s score was 1 standard deviation above the mean whereas
Tomoko’s score was 0.5 standard deviation above the mean. So, who performed better on the
standardized test? The answer is Carlos as 1 standard deviation above the mean is better than 0.5
standard deviation above the mean. Keep in mind that it is quite likely for a z-score to have a
negative value as well. This simply means that the standard deviation is below the mean by a
certain distance. Z-scores allow researchers to compare the scores of the same exam taken in
different class sections, provided that the mean and the standard deviation for both classes are
available.
Once we establish the techniques for comparing data, such as scores for the SAT and ACT,
research can start developing statistical hypotheses. Statistical hypotheses are statements about
some characteristics of a variable or a collection of variables. There are two types of hypotheses
used in statistical hypothesis testing. A null hypothesis (𝑯𝑯𝟎𝟎 ) is a working statement that posits
141
the absence of statistical relationship between two or more variables. In statistics, we desire in
proving whether a working statement can be proven false. Related to the null hypothesis is the
alternative hypothesis (𝑯𝑯𝑨𝑨 ). Also known as research hypothesis, it is simply an alternative
working statement to the null hypothesis. Essentially, it is the claim a researcher is making when
testing the relationships between data. To best illustrate statistical hypotheses, null and
alternative hypotheses, let us consider the following data and go through the process of
hypothesis testing.
The Department of Political Science at San Diego City College wanted to see if extra study
sessions will have any effect on the students’ performance on the midterm exam. We have
randomly selected students to attend extra study sessions. 29 The mean score of the midterm test
for the American politics (population mean) class was 75, with the standard deviation of 7
amongst 200 students. The mean score of the students who attended the extra study session
(sample mean) was 82 and there were 50 students who were attended. Can we figure out if the
extra study sessions on average had any effect on student performance?
In order for us to be able to conduct this test, we have to decide on a couple of more things. First,
we have to determine the level of probability that you are comfortable with in terms of
mistakenly accepting the alternative hypothesis. This is called statistical significance or the
alpha level. In other words, it is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true.
For example, an alpha of 0.05 means that we want to be 95% confident, and this is typically the
level that most political scientists would agree as being acceptable. For this example, let us use
the alpha of 0.05 (95% confidence). This decision lead us to identify another critical element
needed for hypothesis testing: critical z-score. This value tells us whether we need to reject the
research claim or not. Since we have decided that the alpha to be used here is 0.05, the critical z-
score is 1.96. You can identify this number by a z-score probability table often located at the
back of an introductory statistics textbook. Also, we need to decide whether we are going to be
conducting one-tailed or two-tailed test. Since this is beyond the scope of this textbook, I will use
the two-tailed test for this example. The summary of the information we have for this example
can be found in the table below.
Table 8-5
Statistic Value
Population Mean (𝜇𝜇) 75
Standard Deviation (𝜎𝜎) 7
Sample Mean (𝑌𝑌) 82
29
Of course, this is an unrealistic example since it is unethical to offer extra help to a selected group of students. In
reality, we will offer the opportunity to all students!
142
Sample size (n) 50
Alpha-level 0.05
Critical z-score 1.96
Null Hypothesis (𝐻𝐻0 ) 𝑌𝑌 = 𝜇𝜇
Alternative Hypothesis (𝐻𝐻𝐴𝐴 ) 𝑌𝑌 ≠ 𝜇𝜇 or 𝑌𝑌 > 𝜇𝜇
Now we have all the necessary information, we can conduct the hypothesis testing using this
example. Ultimately, a hypothesis testing involves the examination of the observed test statistic
relative to the threshold that you have determined (critical z-score). If the observed test statistic
goes beyond the critical value, we can safely say that your research claim may be correct. To
calculate the observed test statistic (in this case z-score for the samples) by using the equation
below.
�𝑌𝑌−𝜇𝜇�
𝑍𝑍𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = (8.7)
𝜎𝜎/√𝑛𝑛
|82−75|
𝑍𝑍𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = = 7.07
7/√50
Now compare the observed z-score and the critical z-score.
𝑍𝑍𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 : |7.07| > 1.96 (𝑍𝑍𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 )
In this case, since the observed z-score was larger than the threshold of 1.96 we can say that the
claim that 𝑌𝑌 = 𝜇𝜇 can be rejected. Conversely, if the observed z-score was smaller than 1.96, we
will say, we failed to reject the null hypothesis. It is important to note that we never accept the
null hypothesis. So, what does this mean ultimately? According to the test result here, we can
safely say that the observation that the average score of those who received extra support was
higher than the population average was not the result of change. In other words, we can make a
conjecture that the extra support may have contributed to the higher average for the sample
(extra support) group. While our example used the comparison of the means using z-scores, we
can use the same concept for the comparison of the means tests with t-test and a comparison of
proportions as well.
When conducting a hypothesis testing to make a statistical inference, it is possible that your
decisions about whether to reject the null-hypothesis or not was incorrect. It is possible for you
to mistakenly reject the null-hypothesis that was true. This type of error is called a type-I error,
and this is the case of “false-positive” conclusion. When a researcher fails to reject the null
hypothesis that is false, the researcher has committed a type-II error (“false-negative”
143
conclusion). We can try to safeguard against these errors. The significance level that we
discussed above (alpha-level) is the probability that you will commit a type-I error. By
increasing the alpha-level, you can ensure that your chance of committing this type or error is
reduced. As for a type-II error, the probability of committing this error relates to the concept of
“power” in the testing. Simply put, the larger the sample included in the test, the less likely that
the study will suffer from a type-2 error.
In this section, we have introduced the foundational knowledge to expand on your interest in
advancing your quantitative method skills. What you were exposed here is a small tip of a huge
statistical iceberg. If you are interested in the quantitative political research, we highly encourage
you to enroll in an introductory level statistics course, preferably in political science (if your
school offers) or in other social and behavioral sciences department.
Section 8.4: Interpreting Statistical Tables in Political Science

Articles
Learning Objectives
● Read and understand a standard regression table commonly found political science
journals
● Comprehend the numerical expressions in a regression table, including the coefficient,
standard error, and confidence level
Political scientists often present their analytical results of the research in the table. In addition,
quite a few articles or books often will include summary statistics as well, usually prior to
144
presenting their analysis. The previous sections equipped you with enough information to
accurately review analyzes data published in various journals. However as mentioned throughout
this book, methodological advancements are a feature in political science, particularly in the
advancement of quantitative approaches. Researchers will often borrow techniques from other
disciplines, especially those with tangential puzzles or problems, such as economics, or
psychology. Likewise, they will seek to incorporate new developments from statisticians and/or
from mathematicians in formal modeling or game theory.
Again, even though some researchers in political science use mathematical models of behavior or
have begun using experimental methodology, quantitative research in political science relies
heavily on observational methods. Once the information has been coded and arranged into a
datasets, political scientists will often use a type of regression analysis. Even though this type of
quantitative analysis is the most common approach, an in-depth discussion on regression and
other statistical techniques is beyond the scope of this chapter and the textbook. However, we
believe that it is nevertheless important to introduce you to a basic understanding of a statistical
table in a journal article, and how analytical results of quantitative research are generally
presented.
To repeat, a student needs additional exposure and training in quantitative methods in order to
properly interpret a table of results generated by a regression statistical analysis. However, there
are some elements of a regression table that warrants a discussion in this section as political
science students will be required to read such tables in the articles they have been assigned in
class. However, even before a student begins the analysis of a regression table, she first needs to
identify the causal relationship being examined in the article. In other words, the first task in the
analysis of a statistical results table is to identify the outcome (dependent) variable(s) and the
explanatory (independent) variables. In the process of identification, one also needs to
understand how each variable is quantified/measured (see Section 8.1). Also, it is important to
identify the statistical model being estimated. Again, all this discussion is beyond the scope of
the current chapter. We merely want to make you aware that there are many things to consider
when looking at a regression table.
145
Figure 8-6: An Example of a Regression Table
The first number to understand in the regression table above is called the coefficient.
Coefficients inform the reader of the nature of the relationship between the outcome and
explanatory variables. Each coefficient has either a positive or negative sign. A negative sign
indicates an inverse relationship with the outcome variable. In simpler terms, if the value of a
coefficient goes up, then the value of the outcome variable goes down. Conversely, a positive
sign on a coefficient means that an increase in the value of the coefficient results in an increase
in the value of outcome. In terms of substantive definition of a coefficient, or what does this
relationship, either inverse or positive, really mean will depend on the statistical model utilized
in the study.
The second number, right below the coefficient in parentheses is the standard error. In a very
useful website by Steven Miller (“Reading a Regression Table: A Guide for Students” 2014), he
notes that “the standard error is [an] estimate of the standard deviation of the coefficient”. This
helps us in understanding just how correlated the two variables are. And it tells us how
potentially wrong the estimate is as it captures how much uncertainty we have in the model. The
higher the standard error, the weaker the model is relative to variables. This means that we are
not as sure if the correlation, or relationship between the variables, is as certain as it may appear.
Finally, researchers use the standard error when looking to improve the certainty of the findings.
The third set of numbers to consider are at the bottom of the regression table. These are the
confidence levels for each coefficient. The idea of confidence is very similar to the concept of
statistical significance or alpha levels introduced in Section 8.3. Typically speaking in the social
sciences, researchers use asterisks (*) to report the level of significance. A coefficient with one
asterisk “*” indicates that the relationship between the outcome and that particular variable has
146
90% confidence. In addition, two asterisks “**” indicates 95% and three asterisks signifies 99%
confidence accordingly. Most statistical software programs, including Stata, R, SPSS, and SAS,
automatically report the significance level of the explanatory variables. If the coefficients do not
have any asterisk at all, that means that the model was unable to distinguish if the relationship
between the outcome and the variables were important. Instead, it could be a result of random or
systematic factors. In this case, researchers would report that these coefficients without any
asterisks were statistically insignificant.
Finally, remember that in a regression table, there could be quite a few additional reported
numerical indicators. In addition, the variety of statistical figures these will change depending on
the utilized models. Furthermore, a researcher may include additional diagnostic tests, often to
ensure the robustness of the model. As noted above, in order for a student to feel fully equipped
to confidently be a “consumer” of quantitative political research, additional quantitative method
and statistic courses will be required. However, we hope that in the very least this chapter has
piqued your interest in quantitative approach to political research.
Key Terms/Glossary
● Alpha Level (statistical significance): The probability of rejecting the null hypothesis
when it is true
● Alternative hypothesis (𝑯𝑯𝑨𝑨 ): Also known as research hypothesis, it is simply an
alternative working statement to the null hypothesis. Essentially, it is the claim a
researcher is making when testing the relationships between data
● Bar Graph: A visual representation of the data, usually drawn using rectangular bars to
show how sizable each value is. The bars can be vertical or horizontal
● Cases: are the people, places, things or actions (subjects) that are being observed in a
research project
● Central Tendency - consists of the mode, the median, and the mean, which locate the
center of a distribution of a particular data set. It identifies “the most typical case” in that
data distribution
● Coding: refers to the conversion of words or words phrases into numerical expressions
that can be used for statistical analyses
● Coefficient: a numerical expression of the relationship between the outcome and
explanatory variables
● Confidence Levels: representation of statistical significance or alpha levels on regression
tables
● Descriptive Statistics: The numerical representation of certain characteristics and
properties of the entire collected data
● Deviation: distance of an observation from the mean
● Frequency Table: A table that includes frequency, proportion, percentage and
cumulative percentage of a particular observation
147
● Histogram: A type of graph here the height and area of the bars are proportionate to the
frequencies in each category of a variable.
● Interquartile Range (IQR): The IQR is the difference between the 75th percentile
(where 75% of values are located under that point) and the 25th percentile (where 25% of
observations are below this point)
● Interval Scale: A quantitative variable that possesses the property of equal intervals, but
does not possess a true zero
● Large-n: a dataset with a large number of cases
● Mean: Sum of the observed value of each subject divided by the number of subjects
● Median: The point in the distribution that splits the observations into two equal parts. It
is the middle point of the data distribution when the observations are ordered by their
numerical values.
● Mode: The most frequently occurring category/value in data.
● Nominal Scale: Identifies the groups to which a participant belongs; does not measure
quantity or amount
● Normal Distribution: A distribution with a bell-shaped curve where the value of the
mean, median, and the mode is the same, and data near the mean are more frequent in
occurrence.
● Null hypothesis (𝑯𝑯𝟎𝟎 ): A working statement that posits the absence of statistical
relationship between two or more variables. In statistics, we desire in proving whether a
working statement can be proven false
● Ordinal Scale: Subjects are placed in categories, and the categories are ordered
according to amount or quantity of the construct being measured. However, the variables
are not equidistant from each other
● Quantitative Methods: analyses that involves some kind of mathematical analysis or
complex mathematical measurement
● Range: the difference in the value between the maximum and minimum value
● Ratio Scale: An interval quantitative variable that displays a true zero
● Scatter Plot: A graph that uses Cartesian coordinates (i.e., a plane that consists of x-axis
and y-axis) to display values for two variables from a dataset to display how one variable
may influence the other variable
● Standard Deviation: The square root of the variance. It represents the typical deviation
of observation as opposed to the average squared distance from the mean.
● Standard Error(s): An estimate of the standard deviation of the coefficient (Miller)
● Statistical hypotheses: Statements about some characteristics of a variable or a
collection of variables
● Statistical inference: Defined as the process of analyzing data generated by a sample,
but then used to determine some characteristic of the larger population
● Time-Series Plot: A graph used to display the changes in the values of a particular
variable measured at a different point in history.
● Type-I error: An error of mistakenly reject the null-hypothesis that was true
148
● Type-II error: An error of failing to reject the null hypothesis that is false
● Units of Analysis: the “who” or the “what” that you are analyzing for your study. Often
interchangeable with word cases
● Variable: defined by Hatcher (2013) as having “some characteristic of an observation
which may display two or more values in a data set”.
● Variance: The average of the squared deviation.
● Z-score: A statistic that tells us the number of standard deviations that a particular
observation falls above or below from the mean.
Summary
Summary of Section 8.1: What are Quantitative Methods?

Quantitative methods are the use of mathematical analysis or complex mathematical
measurement to solve problems or puzzles. These methods generally involve the use of statistical
techniques, particularly when analyzing datasets constructed from surveys. Datasets consists of
data points generated from cases. Cases can include people, or decisions made by people. Data
can be measured differently, using four scales - nominal scales, ordinal scales, interval scales,
ratio scales.
Summary of Section 8.2: Making Sense of Data

The initial step is to organize the raw data into a more manageable format. Afterwards, there are
various ways that the data can be presented: frequency table, histogram, bar graph, scatterplot,
time-series plot. Datasets all have a central tendency, which locates the center of the data, which
then allows for an analysis to take place. The mode, median, and the mean can help us determine
the central tendency. From this, we can determine the range and interquartile range, the
deviation, the variance, and the standard deviation.
Summary of Section 8.3: Introduction to Statistical Inference

Once we have established some elementary statistics, we can then begin to analyze the data.
First, we look at the normal distribution of the data. It is often represented through a bell curve.
with the exam scores peaking in the middle. If the value of the mean, median, and the mode is
the same, and data near the mean are more frequent in occurrence, we can refer to this curve as a
normal distribution. Understanding the distribution of the data then allows us to begin
comparing. Using a z-score, we can determine if a particular data point falls above or below the
mean, and how many standard deviations as well. With these techniques, we can begin
developing statistical hypotheses. The two most common are the null hypothesis and the
alternative hypothesis. To determine if we can accept or reject the null and/or alternative
hypotheses, we have to establish the level of statistical significance we are interested in, or the
alpha level. At times we mistakenly reject the null-hypothesis that was true. This type of error is
149
called a type-I error. However, when a researcher fails to reject the null hypothesis that is false,
the researcher has committed a type-II error.
Summary of Section 8.4: Interpreting Statistical Tables in Political Science

Articles
Political scientists often use regression analyses to understand relationships between variables.
These regression results are often represented in table format. In these tables, there are three
numerical expressions that every student should understand, regardless of their skill levels. The
first is the coefficient, which is a numerical expression of the relationship between the outcome
and explanatory variables. The second is the standard error, defined as the estimate of the
standard deviation of the coefficient. The third is the confidence level, which communicates the
statistical significance of the correlation between the variables. Researchers use asterisks (*) to
report the level of significance in the table.
Review Questions
1. What are quantitative methods?
a. analyses that involves some kind of mathematical analysis or complex
mathematical measurement
b. analyses that involves some kind of observation of a person or group
c. analyses that involves some kind of visual aid, such as a piece of art or drawing
2. Central tendency is defined as the mode, the median, and the mean, which locate the
center of a distribution of a particular data set. It identifies “the most typical case” in that
data distribution
a. True
b. False
3. Statistical inference is the process of analyzing data generated by a sample, but then used
to determine some characteristic of the larger population
a. True
b. False
4. What are type-I errors?
a. An error of mistakenly reject the null-hypothesis that was true
b. An error of failing to reject the null hypothesis that is false
5. What are type-II errors?
a. An error of failing to reject the null hypothesis that is false
b. An error of mistakenly reject the null-hypothesis that was true

1. What are quantitative methods?
150
2. What are cases? What are variables?
3. What are the differences between the level of measurements (i.e., nominal, ordinal,
interval, and ratio)?
4. What are the different ways data can be presented?
5. What are the measures of central tendency?
6. What are the variance and the standard deviation, and how are they related?
7. What is z-score and how is it used the process of hypothesis testing?
8. What is a null hypothesis? What is an alternative hypothesis?
9. What are type-I and type-II errors?
10. What are three main reported numbers in a regression table?
11. Think about how datasets are constructed. What are the potential pitfalls in this process?
How are variables possibly designed? How could your personal biases enter into these
processes?
12. How important is the standard deviation to understanding relationships between data
points? Why do you think students find it so hard to understand this concept? What could
students do to better understand the standard deviation?
13. What is statistical inference? How can the z-scores help us understand statistical
inference? How can these statistical techniques help us think about hypothesis testing?

Websites
● “Reading a Regression Table: A Guide for Students.” n.d. Steven V. Miller. Accessed
December 15, 2019. http://svmiller.com/blog/2014/08/reading-a-regression-table-a-
guide-for-students/.
● Rice Virtual Lab in Statistics http://onlinestatbook.com/rvls.html
● “Statistics Glossary - Hypothesis Testing.” n.d. Accessed December 15, 2019.
http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/hypothesis_testing.html.
● “The Little Handbook of Statistical Practice.” n.d. Accessed December 15, 2019.
http://www.jerrydallal.com/LHSP/LHSP.htm.
Journal Articles
● Geddes, Barbara. 1990. “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get:
Selection Bias in Comparative Politics”, Political Analysis 2(1): 131-150.
● Fearon, J. 1991. Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science. World
Politics, 43(2), 169-195.
Books
● Agresti, Alan. 2017. Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences, 5th ed. Pearson.
● Marchant-Shapiro, Theresa. 2015. Statistics for Political Analysis: Understanding the
Numbers, Sage/CQ Press.
151
● Ross, Sheldon. 2017. Introductory Statistics, 4th ed. Academic Press.
● Shively, W. Phillips. 2017. The Craft of Political Research. 10th edition. New York:
Routledge.
● Tokunaga, Howard T. 2015. Fundamental Statistics for the Social and Behavioral
Sciences, SAGE Publication.
Contributor(s)
● 1st edition, 2020: Dino Bozonelos, Ph.D., Masahiro Omae, Ph.D.
References
Agresti, A., and B. Finlay. 1997. “Introduction to Multivariate Relationships.” Statistical
Methods for the Social Sciences, Ed 3: 356–72.
Diez, David M., Christopher D. Barr, and Mine Cetinkaya-Rundel. 2012. OpenIntro Statistics.
OpenIntro.
Johnson, Janet Buttolph, H. T. Reynolds, and Jason D. Mycoff. 2015. Political Science Research
Methods. CQ Press.
“Reading a Regression Table: A Guide for Students.” 2014. Steven V. Miller. 2014.
http://svmiller.com/blog/2014/08/reading-a-regression-table-a-guide-for-students/.
152
Chapter 9 - Research Ethics
Steven Cauchon, Ph.D. and Masahiro Omae, Ph.D.
Chapter Outline
• Section 9.1: Ethics in Political Research
• Section 9.2: Ethics and Human “Subjects”
• Section 9.3: Navigating Qualitative Data Collection
• Section 9.4: Research Ethics in Quantitative Research
• Section 9.5: Ethically Analyzing and Sharing Co-generated Knowledge
Section 9.1 Ethics in Political Research
Learning Objectives
● Define research ethics
● Understand the purpose of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
Now that you have become familiar with many of the details associated with the scientific
method, research design, and the various methods for conducting research, we still have one final
puzzle to address—how do we conduct research the “right” way? Just as individual judgments
and choices are guided by a society’s morals, norms, and principles, so too is the discipline of
political science. For instance, what is the right way to frame our questions without misleading
our research subjects? How ought we interpret results that may be ‘fuzzy’ or prone to
153
manipulation? And what, if anything, do we owe the individuals and communities that makes
much of our scholarship possible in the first place?
These are just a few of the ethical challenges that confront political science researcher, and like
the principles that guide any given society, they are subject to debate, interpretation, and tend to
operate at the intersection of theory and practice. Thus, in order to research and produce
knowledge in an ethical way, our craft is governed by a number of principles and rules that
depends on researchers exercising sound judgment when their exact application may be unclear.
The word ethics comes from the Greek work word ēthos, meaning moral character, and ēthikos,
pertaining to customary behavior. Put another way, ethics are the systems of principles that guide
a particular group’s appropriate action. Indeed, all scientists are expected to conduct research in
a particular way, which observes agreed upon principles established and revised by various
“epistemic communities,” or communities of learning and knowledge production. Some of these
ethical principles may seem obvious: not claiming credit for the work of others (e.g. plagiarism);
misrepresenting sources or inventing data; using unreliable data, and distorting opposing views
(Booth, Colomb, and Williams 2008). However, some ethical considerations are less
straightforward, such as contemplating the potential effects of one’s research on society. Indeed,
from the invention of dynamite to the creation of the internet, scientists are seldom capable of
maintaining a monopoly on how their research, inventions, and discoveries will ultimately
impact individuals, society, or our planet.
Failing to take ethical considerations in one’s research may not only do irreparable harm to
others, but also to your reputation, that of your home institution and our discipline—political
science. It is for this reason that in the United States, political scientists must submit their
research proposals to Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), which assesses the degree to which the
researcher and their project’s design has taken appropriate measures to protect the rights and
well-being of their “human subjects.” A full discussion of IRBs is beyond the scope of this
chapter, as their particular protocols and emphasis varies depending on their location. Yet
generally speaking, IRBs were developed between 1970-1990 in response to unethical research
on human subjects, such as that conducted by Dr. Josef Menegle and others during the Nazi
Regime (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2011). Although designed to protect the researcher, their
research participants, and the universities or institutions in which they are typically housed, they
have been critiqued for being overly bureaucratic and legalistic in nature (Yanow and Schwartz-
Shea 2011).
Moreover, because IRBs cannot anticipate the numerous judgments calls we may confront when
conducting research, a common refrain by most IRBs is that when in doubt, err on the side of
caution(Shively 2017). Thus, the task of preparing young political scientists for the ethical
challenges that await them in designing, conducting, and hopefully, publishing their findings is
largely the responsibility of the guardians and practitioners of our discipline—such as authors of
this text and your instructor. That being said, what follows is by no means a compressive guide
to ethical research nor can your instructor prepare you for all the potential ethical questions and
154
dilemmas that may arise as you progress in this field. What we instead offer are a number of key
principles, some of which are subject to debate, that you must grapple with and consider when
engaged in research.
Section 9.2 Ethics and Human “Subjects”
Learning Objectives
● Consider the unique ethical considerations that pertain to working with human research
subjects
● Understand the significance of fully informed consent and how to go about obtaining it
All scientists must consider the potential impacts of their work. Yet, what is arguably distinct
about the social sciences in general and political science specifically is the central role that
humans play in our studies. For instance, as Chapter 7 on qualitative methods demonstrates,
approaches to political science rely heavily on interviewing human subjects, and in some
instances, living with and significantly immersing oneself in their cultures, communities and
ways of life. For instance, the relational character of participant observation often requires
researchers to establish relationships with participants to co-create knowledge, rather than simply
treating them as informants which are mined for academic data (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea
2011). Indeed, one of the rewarding and challenging aspects of conducting research in political
science, perhaps unlike the study of atoms, rocks, or even the cosmos, is that our “subjects” are
not only a means to testing theories, illuminating puzzles, and discovering new ones, but are also
ends in themselves. Consequently, this requires striking a balance between one’s role as a
researcher, an active participant in the phenomenon under investigation, a friend, and in certain
instances, an adversary.
Figure 9-1: Research participants from the Buklod Tao organization in Brgy by Steven Cauchon, CC BY-NC-SA
To be sure, political research always entails an element of human costs, be it the time our
participant gives us, reliving a private or traumatic event, or worse. This is true for both
qualitative and quantitative approaches. That being said, research that minimizes such costs and
155
is conducted in an ethical fashion can help us better understand certain political phenomena that
can lead to positive change for humanity, emancipation for the oppressed, and the empowering
process of having one’s voice heard. And while there is no exact formula for assessing when our
research ends justify our means, as a scientific community, we generally agree on a number of
foundational principles and practices that assist us in making ethical research considerations and
choices. For instance, we must consider to what extent our study might harm our subjects, be it
physical, psychological, and emotional, intentional or not.
It is for this reason that we are expected to be forthcoming with our research participants and
avoid misleading them as our research and its dissemination may put them in harm’s way. For
example, given the personal and individual nature of qualitative data collection, the principle of
“fully informed consent” is employed before participants engage in our study. There are a
number of ways this can be done, but it is often useful to use a consent script that is read to all
participants, which is useful to maintain a common standard for all participates and is often
reviewed by an IRB before the study can even begin (See Image 9.2) . This script typically
informs participants about the exact nature of the study, the potential implications for them, what
will happen to them during this process, what will happen to the data they provide, how it will
ultimately be used, and that they have the right at any time during the study to withdraw if they
feel uncomfortable or are no longer willing to participate (Gibbs 2008).
Figure 9-2: Sample of IRB oral consent script by Steven Cauchon, CC BY-NC-SA
156
Although a consent script gives the research and their home institution legal protection and
provides the study’s participants with the information they need to decide if it is in their interest
to proceed, this is no substitute for the trust often necessary for conducting qualitative research.
For example, the use of participant observation and other forms of immersion research are
frequently instrumental to not only learn, but also engender trust with human subjects. Even if a
researcher has a profound research question, theory, or hypothesis, without access to the
necessary archives, organizations, or communities, let alone the trust of key individuals, the
project cannot proceed beyond the theoretical. However, once access and trust are established,
multiple opportunities can emerge for one to learn from. Given that many of our initial hunches
and subsequent questions we ask interviewees emerge from provisional inferences made before
we conduct any fieldwork, participant observation can help us construct survey instruments that
minimize the potential for confirmation bias and/or misrepresenting our study’s participants
(Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2011).
Moreover, establishing deep connections with human subjects can give researchers unique access
and perception as an ‘insider,’ rather than an ‘outsider,’ with only scholarly interests. For
example, when conducting qualitative interviews, surveys, or ethnography, we often have access
to rich details of our participants’ lives, communities, etc. This richness often entails getting
close to our participants and it is not uncommon for friendships and deep connections to grow.
Indeed, one of the exciting aspects of this kind of research is that it is unpredictable and can lead
to new discoveries that we did not originally anticipate. However, while this can lead to a deep
understanding of the phenomena under investigation, we may be exposed to data that could be
illegal, ethically dubious, or might put us or our participants in danger. With this in mind, the
following section discusses how such access and trust entails a number of ethical considerations,
such as being forthcoming about our interests and intentions as both scholar, participants, and
who we are individually.
Section 9.3: Navigating Qualitative Data Collection
Learning Objectives
● Understand the importance of anonymity and confidential to ethical data collection
● Consider how a reflexive approach to data collection can minimize bias and open
ourselves to new ways of thinking
As the above section points out, engendering trust can provide access to individuals,
communities and insights that would be otherwise difficult to obtain. But with such access also
comes a great deal of responsibility when it comes to data collection. For instance, an important
ethical consideration is offering to conduct an interview, survey, or observation under the
condition of confidentiality. This not only allows human subjects the comfort to speak their truth
but takes seriously the principle of “first do no harm,” rather than treating them as means to our
own academic ends.
157
It is not uncommon that a researcher may come to the realization that one or a number of the
participants in their study may face some kind of retribution, embarrassment, or worse as a result
of our study, even if the participant may not have realized it at the time of consent. Once again,
we are confronted with an ethical dilemma: do we cite the source knowing that it will give more
credibility to our study or do we anonymize, if not completely omit this information, knowing
the potential harm that could befall our participant(s)? This is not an easy decision, but as we
have mentioned, the ethical researcher is encouraged to be cautious rather than risk human harm.
Indeed, we are asking our subjects to help us learn and create knowledge. Therefore, it would not
only be selfish but unethical to knowingly put them in harm’s way for the sake of our study, if
we know there is even a possibility of negative repercussions.
Beyond minimizing the potential of physical or psychological harm that could befall our human
subjects, we must also consider the epistemic violence, or harm that can come as a result of local
knowledge being displaced and/or distorted by our alternative own frameworks, concepts and
ways of knowing (i.e. epistemology) (Spivak 2010). For example, political scientists also adjust
their instruments data collection methods in the field based on how different participants
interpret the phenomenon under investigation, and the meanings they ascribe to them. Similar to
Schaffer’s study of “demokrassi” in Senegal, how interviewees understand key concepts and
ideas under investigation, in this case democracy, frequently vary from language used in
academic debates (Schaffer 2000). It can be incredibly frustrating when our survey instruments,
typically rooted in theoretical literature or previous studies, do not mesh with what participants
are articulating in the field. It is therefore not uncommon for scholars, either subconsciously or
otherwise, to gather data in such a way that can mistakenly confirm hunches, and related
questions, which animate their projects.
Yet, the desire to confirm what we are looking for can unwittingly bias the responses of our
interviewees, based on how one frames their questions and any perceived position of authority or
power of the interviewer. Ethically, avoiding the temptation to impose our conceptual apparatus
on human subjects can discipline the researcher’s thinking, help them productively rethink initial
hunches in useful ways, avoid the presumptive authority of academic concepts, and be open to a
constant integration and revaluation of them (Godrej 2011). For instance, participant observation
is often an essential tool for providing evolving survey instruments with the appropriate language
for bridging academic debates with what our interviewees are trying to tell us. However, a key
dimension of such an approach is a commitment to reflexivity regarding the ways in which one’s
personal identity, perception by others, and worldview may affect the way they are able to gather
and analyze one’s data (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2011). This may involve “interrogating
forms of inclusion and exclusion and breaking down boundaries. Likewise, it may involve
listening for silences and sometimes responsibly sustaining those silences, depending on the
context (Ackerly and True 2010; Cecelia Lynch 2013).”
Reflexive research also includes an awareness of the distorting effects that arise from ones’
location in their academic field, one’s personal relationship to their subjects, and acknowledging
the fact that they are inextricably involved in the social processes under observation (Cecilia
158
Lynch 2014). Yet, as one learns how to mitigate potential response bias (the tendency of
participants to answer our question inaccurately due to the wording of questions or how their
answer will be perceived by the researcher) and confirmation bias (the tendency of researchers to
interpret data in such a way that it confirms their existing beliefs), our unique position in the field
can also help bridge boundaries between academic debates and our research subjects, along with
those between theory and practice. Ethically engaging the voices, stories, and insights of human
subjects thus have both material and epistemological consequences. Specifically, allowing
researchers not only contribute to key debates in political science, but also share what we have
learned with those who helped co-generate this new knowledge.
Section 9.4: Research Ethics in Quantitative Research
Learning Objectives
● Explain the rationale behind the principle of data access and research transparency
● Understand the benefit of increased openness in quantitative research
While quantitative/statistical analysis, when used properly, could yield powerful information to
support one’s theoretical claims, improper use of such technique could ultimately challenge the
integrity of the quantitative method as well as the research being conducted. Without proper
precautions, statistics can lead to misunderstanding as well as intentional misrepresentation and
manipulation of the findings.
One of the most important facts to consider when applying the quantitative method to one’s
research, is to make sure that the principle of objectivity, which is at the heart of the scientific
method, is reflected in practice (Johnson, Reynolds, and Mycoff 2015). In other words, in
159
addition to presenting the information in an objective manner as possible, one must ensure that
all relevant information in interpreting the results is also accessible to the readers as well. The
implication of this principle in practice is that not only should a researcher provide access to data
used in a research project but also explain the process of how one has reached the conclusion that
is presented in the research. This resonates with the current discourse on data access and research
transparency in the political science discipline.
The most recent work on data access and research transparency in political science discipline
were borne out of the concerns amongst practitioners that scholars were unable to replicate a
significant proportion of research produced in top journals. In order for the discipline to advance
knowledge across different subfields of political science and different methodological
approaches, the principle of data sharing and research transparency became ever relevant in the
discourse of the discipline. The idea is that evidence-informed knowledge needs to be accessible
by the members of other research community whose research may rely on different
methodological approaches. As a result of the growing concerns about the lack of norms of data
sharing and research transparency culture amongst practitioners of various methodological
communities and substantive subfield, the American Political Science Association (APSA), the
national professional organization for political scientists, have produced an ethics guideline to
ensure that the discipline as a whole can advance the data sharing and research transparency
culture and practice.
The recently updated ethics guidelines published by APSA which is mentioned in (Lupia and
Elman 2014) states that “researchers have an ethical obligation to facilitate the evaluation of their
evidence-based knowledge claims through data access, production transparency, and analytic
transparency so the at their work can be tested and replicated”. According to this document,
quantitatively oriented research must meet the three prongs of research ethics: data access,
production transparency, and analytical transparency. When conducting quantitative political
research, all three needs to be incorporated for it to be considered meeting the ethical standard.
First, researchers must ensure data accessibility. Researchers should clearly reference the data
used in their work, and if the data used were originally generated, collected, and/or compiled by
the researcher, she should provide access to them. This is a practice already adopted by many
journals where the condition of publication of an article is to provide access to data used in the
manuscript. Some researchers include code and commands used in various statistical software,
such as Stata, SAS, and R, so that one can replicate the published work.
Second, researchers need to practice production transparency. Not only should the researcher
share the data themselves, but she also needs to provide a full account of the procedures used in
the generation and collection of the data. First and foremost, this principle provides safeguards
against unethical practice of misrepresenting or inventing data. One of the most famous recent
cases of data fraud in political science research perhaps is the case involving Michael LaCour
(Konnikova 2015). He completely fabricated the data he and his co-author Donald Green used in
their research where many political scientists thought was miraculous findings. Only when two
160
UC Berkeley grad students, David Broockman and Josh Kalla, tried to replicate the study and
contacted the firm that LaCour supposedly used in the collection of the survey data, it was
revealed that LaCour completely made up the “survey data” the authors used in their research.
Finally, researchers need to ensure analytical transparency where the link between the data and
the conclusion of the research is clearly delineated. In other words, a researcher must explicitly
explain the process that led to the conclusion of a research project based on the data being used
in such a study. The empirical evidence must be clearly mapped on the theoretical framework of
a given research project. Some scholars are concerned about the implication of radical honesty in
political science research, identifying that the probability of successful journal publication may
diminish as the level of transparency and radical honesty increases (Yom 2018). As a result, the
idea of radical honesty in political science research requires the institutional buy-in beyond an
ethical practice at the individual level. Unless such a practice is beneficial to a scholar, as
opposed to being a challenge, the culture of analytical transparency may not cascade to the
greater political science community beyond the pockets of ethical practitioners that currently
exist.
It is important to note that increased openness in quantitative research provides political

scientists with a number of benefits beyond what is promised in the ethical front (Lupia and
Elman 2014). First, transparency and increased data access offer members of a particular
research community to examine the current state of their own scholarship. Through such
“internal” self-assessment within a particular subfield of political science, scholars are able to
cultivate ä n evidentiary and logical basis of treating claims as valid” (Lupia and Elman 2014). In
many subfields, the validity of their knowledge requires replication of existing work. When
access to quality data is limited, it becomes challenging to determine whether we should have
confidence in the research findings presented. Without the culture and practice of data access and
research transparency, it affects the confidence of a particular subfield as well.
In the literature of civil war onset, Hegre and Sambanis, for example, conducted a sensitivity
study on the findings of various published works (Hegre and Sambanis 2006). Essentially, a
sensitivity study is the examination of a numerical measurement (e.g, whether a civil war started
or not) under a different condition than the original setting. In this particular case, the scholars of
civil war literature uses different definitions of when a violent conflict constitute a civil war. The
implication of this is that some scholars may have included or excluded certain cases from their
dataset. Consequentially, it will influence the results of their study. So, one way to conduct a
sensitivity study is to use the same definition, for example, of an outcome variable and replicate
the study to examine the effect of such change.
This project was the result of the observation that several empirical results are not robust or
replicable across studies. Because the authors of these articles in the sensitivity analysis practiced
the ethical culture of data sharing and research transparency, scholars of civil war literature were
able to reflect on the state of their research community. For the members of other research
communities, the culture and practice of openness could contribute to the persuasiveness of the
161
findings. This is based on the idea that the more one is empowered to understand the process
through which the researchers have reached a particular conclusion, the more likely that the
reader is likely to believe and value the knowledge.
Next, the culture and practice of openness help political scientists more effectively communicate
with members of other communities, including non-political scientists. This is very important,
for our research findings often carry real political and social implications. Generally speaking,
good political research must contribute to the field of political science as well as to the real world
(King, Keohane, and Verba 1994). Our findings are often used by political actors, policy
advocates as well as various non-profit organizations that affect many lives of the general public.
For example, Dr. Tom Wong, an expert on immigration policy, has worked as an expert advisor
in the Obama administration and testified in various federal court cases to advocate for the rights
of undocumented immigrants. He supported his position by relying on his research on the impact
of undocumented immigrants which were primarily written for academics. However, he was also
able to communicate with non-political scientists partly because of the fact that his research
reflected the value of data access and research transparency (Wong 2015, 2017).
Although political scientists should intrinsically adopt ethical research practices, it is also quite
effective to identify the potential benefit of such practices to their research communities so that
the practitioners have the incentive to adopt the culture of data sharing and research transparency
and becomes second nature.
Section 9.5: Ethically Analyzing and Sharing Co-generated

Knowledge
Learning Objectives
162
● Critically evaluate the epistemic power associated with knowledge production
● Consider the ethical implications associated with publishing one’s research
Given the differences in the way qualitative and quantitative scholars tend to approach political
research, what constitutes ethical practice may seem to operate differently as well. For example,
due to the reliance on statistics, many students of political science may mistakenly believe that
the quantitative method is always transparent, objective and, therefore, ethical as opposed to the
qualitative method where the reliance on human communications and interactions is thought to
always be subjective. The quantification of political data involves human processes where there
are plenty of opportunities for the product (i.e., dataset) to be biased, especially when such a
process is not transparent. Conversely, a series of interviews for the purpose of data collection
for qualitative scholars can be conducted in such a way to reduce potential biases in the
processes. These claims about whether qualitative or qualitative approaches are better suited for
minimizing biases and upholding the standard of objectivity may be rooted in the idea that the
primary, and for some, only, purpose of political research is to make inferences about the
political world.
Smith (Smith and Renwick Monroe 2005) notes that part of the reason why there is this type of
methodological dispute is because political scientists have not agreed on what makes good
political science research. He argues that while inference testing is essential to political science
research, such an endeavor requires substantively interesting questions and hypotheses about the
political world. As such, political science, as a discipline, needs to reconsider the notion that both
qualitative and quantitative approaches are essential, for the formation of substantively
interesting hypotheses and questions and the improvement of our analytical technique are both
critical in the advancement of the field. Because of the differences in the nature of both
approaches, it is essential to approach the discussion on the standard of ethical practice
accordingly as well. In other words, some ethical standards can be more or less relevant to each
approach because of the differences in how data are collected and analyzed.
As noted in the previous chapter, findings from political science research often become a basis
for political and social changes that have serious real-life implications. Unless the practitioners
of political research, whether they are qualitatively or quantitatively oriented, conduct their
research in an ethical manner, the integrity of the discipline as well as policies being produced
based on our research, for example, could face serious challenges. Because political scientists are
thought to be experts on political and social problems to some extent, we have some perceived
authority on these issues. As a result, when we make some claims about political and social
issues in the public sphere, it may carry some weight than an individual’s opinion, for example,
on various political issues.
Academics have and reproduce what Audie Klutz and Cecelia Lynch (Klotz and Lynch 2007)
refer to as “epistemic power,” through the knowledge we generate as researches and disseminate
through writing and lecturing. Consequently, we can never be entirely value-neutral or eliminate
our personal biases as we replicate or challenge the assumptions of our discipline through our
163
scholarship and our individual methodological choices (Klotz and Lynch 2007). From using
translators in the field to employing professional services to transcribe interviews, we must take
great pains to consider the potential for bias to creep into our analysis, to not misrepresent our
study’s participants, and to always consider their wellbeing.
Therefore, when one begins to analyze what they have learned in the field and prepare to share
their findings, it is important to offer reflections on instances where one’s fieldwork resulted in
dissonance with their initial theoretical framework and where our interviewees challenged and/or
enriched the initial line of inquiry (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2011). For example, the reflexive
approach mentioned in the previous section is also useful when the researcher is analyzing their
data. This includes strategies such as “member checking,” in which findings are discussed with
those studied in the field. This does not deny or undermine the researcher’s epistemological role,
but rather acts as a strategy for addressing the dynamics associated with a researcher’s
subjectivities (i.e. confirmation bias). Ultimately this is your study, and it would be unwise to let
your participants editorialize your findings. However, if a quote or the like might make them
uncomfortable, misrepresent their meaning, or worse, we must take this under consideration.
Lastly, when it comes to publication, it is argued that qualitative researchers in particular have an
ethical reasonability to consider how this research will be used, given the trust, intimacy, and
potential for human impact this chapter has addressed (Gibbs 2008). In this final stage of
research, it is ethically important to reflect on how this information may impact those that made
the researcher’s study possible in the first place. Indeed, many research agendas pertaining to
sensitive topics that might put the researcher and/or their participants in danger. Therefore, many
interviews and surveys must not only be conducted on the basis of anonymity, the original data
stored in a secure location, but also evaluated now that all the pieces of the puzzle have come
together and are almost ready for publication.
For instance, publishing and sharing one’s findings may entail information and/or quotations for
which the research is ethically unable to provide full citations based on confidential interviews,
field, and participant observations. As subsequent researchers may therefore be unable to
replicate our findings, effectively using quotes and accounts from anonymous subjects is often
dependent on such data being shared by more than one person or sources. Another way to bolster
the credibility of anonymous sources is triangulating their accounts and linking them in the
analyses with contextual information (e.g. “according to several soldiers involved in the
conflict”). Once again, being transparent as possible entails a delicate balance between protecting
our human subjects and the integrity of our research.
Congratulations, your study is published and the colleagues who cite your work continue to grow
in number! Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the study’s participants that made your accolades
possible subscribe to the American Journal of Political Science. Indeed, researchers are routinely
criticized for failing to bring the study’s findings back to the individuals/community under
investigation, if not providing it in such a way that they can understand, use, or verify. Ethically,
we should avoid being parasitic with our work and strive to bring something of value back to the
164
community and/or persons that made your study possible. This may seem like an onerous last
step with little instrumental reward, but as this chapter as endeavored to point out, when you
conduct and report your research ethically, “you join a community in search for some common
good…you discover that research focused on the best interest of others is also your own” (Booth,
Colomb, and Williams 2008).
Key Terms/Glossary
• Epistemology: concerns the theory of knowledge creation, specifically to its method,
scope and criteria for validation
• Fully informed consent: the process of obtaining permission from human subjects, after
thoroughly conveying the risks, benefits, methods, and purpose of the study
• Reflexivity: the act of reflecting on the role that researcher’s personal characteristics
(biases, culture, etc.) may impact their research design, data collection, and interpretation
processes.
Summary
Summary of Section 9.1: Ethics in Political Research

To conduct political research in an ethical way, our practice must follow a number of principles
and rules that are established by the community of practitioners. One of the primary reasons for
establishing and following such standards is to ensure that our research is not causing any
irreparable harm to others as well as to protect the integrity and reputation of the political science
discipline. The Institutional Review Board helps ensure that ethical research practices are
institutionalized and potential harms to the subjects of a study are reduced by embedding various
safeguards into the design of a research project.
Summary of Section 9.2: Ethics and Human “Subjects”

It is important to note that our “subjects” are not only a means of testing theories, illuminating
puzzles, and discovering new ones, but are also ends in themselves. As such, it is necessary to be
cognizant about the need to balance between one’s role as a researcher, an active participant in
the phenomenon under investigation, a friend, and in certain instances, an adversary. When
engaging in research involving human subjects, it is essential that the participants are fully
informed as they consent to their participation.
Summary of Section 9.3: Navigating Qualitative Data Collection

In the process of qualitative data collection, it is important to ensure the anonymity and
confidentiality of the subjects to achieve ethical data collection. A researcher must also consider
a reflexive approach to data collection so that one can minimize bias and open ourselves to new
ways of thinking.
165
Summary of Section 9.4: Research Ethics in Quantitative Research
Although all political science share core ethical principles, there are potential differences
between qualitative and quantitative approaches to political science, such as their respective
approaches to addressing issues associated with objectivity and subjectivity. One key concern for
the quantitative researcher are the ethical and analytical benefits associated with facilitating data
access, production transparency, and analytical transparency.
Summary of Section 9.5: Ethically Analyzing and Sharing Co-generated

Knowledge
Due to the fact that academics possess “epistemic power”, it is essential to be aware that we can
never be entirely value-neutral or eliminate our personal biases as we conduct political research.
It is ethically important to reflect on how the results of a study may impact those that made the
study possible. Also, let us strive to bring something of value back to the community and/or
persons that made your study possible.
Review Questions
1. Epistemology concerns the theory of knowledge creation, specifically to its method,
scope and criteria for validation
a. True
b. False
2. Fill in the blank: All scientists must consider the potential impacts of their work. Yet,
what is arguably distinct about the social sciences in general and political science
specifically is the central role that ______ play in our studies.
a. Humans
b. Creatures
c. Animals
d. Organisms
3. Fill in the blank: Beyond minimizing the potential of physical or psychological harm that
could befall our human subjects, we must also consider the _____________, or harm that
can come as a result of local knowledge being displaced and/or distorted by our
alternative own frameworks, concepts and ways of knowing (i.e. epistemology)
a. epistemic violence
b. mind altering
c. epistemic undermining
d. undermining
4. Fill in the blank: The idea is that _________ knowledge needs to be accessible by the
members of other research community whose research may rely on different
methodological approaches.
a. evidence-informed
b. intuition-informed
c. gut-informed
d. experience-informed
166
5. Fully informed consent: the process of obtaining permission from human subjects, after
thoroughly conveying the risks, benefits, methods, and purpose of the study
a. True
b. False

1. What are some of the major advantages and disadvantages of working with human
subjects?
2. What are three key ethical considerations one must consider while engaged in political
science research.
3. What are some unique differences in ethical practices between qualitative and
quantitative research?
4. Why are data access, production transparency, and analytical transparency critical to
political research?
5. What is “epistemic power”, and the role it plays in society?
6. You just finished one of your best interviews, but you forgot or didn’t have the
opportunity to read your IRB approved consent script to your participant: what do you
do?
7. You found out the possibility that the publication of your research could potentially
threatens the lives of your “subjects.” However, your academic career advancement
depends on the publication of this research. How do you resolve this dilemma?
8. You have just finished a fresh round of interviews that seem to contradict not only what
other interviewees have already shared with you, but potentially the central thesis of your
project. Ethically, what are your best options to resolve this dilemma?
Websites
1. “Institutional Review Boards and Social Science Research | AAUP.” n.d. Accessed
December 14, 2019. https://www.aaup.org/report/institutional-review-boards-and-social-
science-research.
2. “Human Subjects Research Ad Hoc Committee.” n.d. Accessed December 14, 2019.
https://connect.apsanet.org/hsr/.
3. “Academy Adopts Five Ethical Principles for Social Science Research.” n.d. Accessed
December 14, 2019. https://www.acss.org.uk/developing-generic-ethics-principles-social-
science/academy-adopts-five-ethical-principles-for-social-science-research/.
167
Journal Articles
1. Fujii, Lee Ann. 2012. “Research Ethics 101: Dilemmas and Responsibilities.” PS:
Political Science & Politics 45(04): 717–23.
2. Fisher, Pamela. 2012. “Ethics in Qualitative Research: ‘Vulnerability’, Citizenship and
Human Rights.” Ethics and Social Welfare 6(1): 2–17.
3. Lupia, Aurthur, and George Alter. 2014. “Data Access and Research Transparency in
the Quantitative Tradition.” PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(1), 54-59.
Books
1. Desposato, Scott, ed. 2016. Ethics and Experiments: Problems and Solutions for Social
Scientists and Policy Professionals. 1 edition. New York, NY: Routledge.
2. Panter, A. T., and Sonya K. Sterba. 2011. Handbook of Ethics in Quantitative
Methodology. Taylor & Francis.
3. Shively, W. Phillips. 2017. The Craft of Political Research. 10th edition. New York:
Routledge.
Contributor(s)
● 1st Edition, 2020: Steven Cauchon, Ph.D; Masahiro Omae, Ph.D.
○ Peer Reviewer(s): Josh Franco, Ph.D.
References
Ackerly, Brooke, and Jacqui True. 2010. Doing Feminist Research in Political and Social
Science. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Booth, Wayne C., G. G. Colomb, and J. M. Williams. 2008. “The Craft of Research, 3" Ed.”
Chicago: The University of.
Gibbs, Graham R. 2008. Analysing Qualitative Data. SAGE.
Godrej, Farah. 2011. “Cosmopolitan Political ThoughtMethod, Practice, Discipline.”
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199782062.001.0001.
Hegre, Håvard, and Nicholas Sambanis. 2006. “Sensitivity Analysis of Empirical Results on
Civil War Onset.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (4): 508–35.
Methods. CQ Press.
Klotz, Audie, and Cecelia Lynch. 2007. “International Relations in a Constructed World.” New
York: ME Sharpe.
Konnikova, Maria. 2015. “How a Gay-Marriage Study Went Wrong.” New Yorker .
https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research/vpr/rsi/readings/Research-Misconduct-
SS.pdf.
Lupia, Arthur, and Colin Elman. 2014. “Openness in Political Science: Data Access and
168
Research Transparency.” PS: Political Science & Politics.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096513001716.
Lynch, Cecelia. 2013. Interpreting International Politics. Routledge.
Lynch, Cecilia. 2014. “Interpreting Politics.” London: Taylor & Francis.
Schaffer, Frederic Charles. 2000. Democracy in Translation: Understanding Politics in an
Unfamiliar Culture. Cornell University Press.
Smith, Rogers M., and Kristen Renwick Monroe. 2005. “Of Means and Meaning: The
Challenges of Doing Good Political Science.” Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in
Political Science, 525–33.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 2010. “‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’revised Edition, from the
‘History’ chapter of Critique of Postcolonial Reason.” Can the Subaltern Speak?:
Reflections on the History of an Idea, 21–78.
Wong, Tom K. 2015. Rights, Deportation, and Detention in the Age of Immigration Control.
Stanford University Press.
———. 2017. The Politics of Immigration: Partisanship, Demographic Change, and American
National Identity. Oxford University Press.
Yanow, Dvora, and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea. 2011. Interpretive Approaches to Research
Design: Concepts and Processes. Taylor & amp.
Yom, Sean. 2018. “Analytic Transparency, Radical Honesty, and Strategic Incentives.” PS,
Political Science & Politics 51 (2): 416–21.
169
Chapter 10 - Conclusion
Josh Franco, Ph.D.
Chapter Outline
Section 10.1: Congratulations!
Section 10.2: The Path Forward for Students
Section 10.3: Frontiers in Political Science Research Methods
Section 10.4: How to Contribute to this OER
Section 10.1: Congratulations!

Congratulations! For anyone who reads a book from beginning to end, it is important to
recognize the accomplishment. Taking the time and making the effort to read through material
that is new, challenging, and worthy of recognition. Too often, we minimize these wins or ignore
them completely. So, a hearty congratulations to you.
Section 10.2: The Path Forward

It is rare to have a course on political science research methods for students in their first or
second year at a college or university. For example, there are only 12 out of 114 community
colleges in California that offer the course you just completed. At my undergraduate and
graduate institution, the University of California, Merced, the political science program has one
lower division course and one upper division course in political science research methods.
While rare now, it’s fair to expect that political science research methods will become a staple in
most political science programs. With this course under your belt, what is the path forward now
170
that you have introduced yourself to political science research methods? The path forward
includes consulting with your professors, looking ahead to see what upper division courses may
be available to you, and seriously considering earning a Master’s or doctoral degree in the
discipline.
Your professor who taught the course will have a sense of additional opportunities that are
available to you at your college or university. If your student had the community college your
professor may consider offering individual or group research opportunities. This may be done
informally by meeting once a week during office hours, or this can be done formally through a
course such as special topics or individualized studies course. For example, when I was a student
at Cerritos Community College, I completed 5 units of Directed Studies in Political Science in
spring and summer of 2004.
While students at community colleges can’t take upper division courses since they are not
offered at two-year institutions, they can certainly look ahead to their four-year institutions of
interest to see what’s available. For students already at a four-year college or university, they
should meet with the professors and academic advisors to map out what upper division courses
can help strengthen the research methods. It’s important to plan ahead about how you want to
develop your knowledge, skills, and abilities. Most of the time, we can be fixated on the idea of a
single class or just earning a degree. But, instead of thinking about college or university in this
traditional way, consider it in a continuous way you’re thinking about the amount of knowledge
you’re acquiring, the number of skills you’re developing, and the number of abilities that you’re
practicing.
As I shared with my students over the years, being in college or university is a special time in
your life not only because you grow personally, introduce yourself to professional opportunities,
but you get to intellectually engage in a range of topics and later on into a specific discipline that
you’re intrigued by. This intellectual experience is something to be embraced not just for the
degree you’ll earn, but for all the other tangibles and intangibles that come with learning about
the world.
Thinking about earning a graduate degree, such as a Master’s or PhD, may not be at the forefront
of your mind when you’re starting your college or university experience. Obviously, you’re
probably worried about how you can pay for the experience, were you going to live, who your
friends are going to be, or how you do your laundry. It is just some of the things that students
who go from high school directly into college or university having to grapple with. Now, for
returning or nontraditional students, there may be another set of factors that your preoccupied
with: how do you go to work and school, who can take care of your children while you’re in
class, and how can you carve out time to do homework at night or the weekends.
All this is what we call life, but part of living life is looking ahead. While we may be stuck in the
day, concerned about how were going to pay our rent or mortgage, or who is going to cook
dinner tonight after a long day of work, we just have to think ahead. And part of that future is
171
furthering your education. My advice here is rather simple: just think about it. Let the idea
evolve in your mind as you begin the long hike up to your goal of earning a bachelor's degree.
As its stews there, take concrete steps to seriously position yourself to take that next step: ask
your professors about their experience, visit the websites of graduate programs, call college or
university you are interested in and asked to speak with somebody about what it takes to earn a
Masters or PhD. This will go a long way in helping you determine if this is the next step you.
Section 10.3: Frontiers of Political Science Research Methods

Political science research methods is a dynamic area of study, research, and practice. Advances
in computer technology, modeling, and interdisciplinary work is pushing political science in new
and exciting directions. There are several frontiers of research methods within the discipline that
represent the cutting edge of the field. Let’s explore just one of these directions.
Geographic information systems, or GIS for short, use spatial data to help understand the world,
identify relationships, and discover patterns with respect to place. Can you remember a world
where you didn’t have Google Maps to help you get from point A to point B? Before the rapid
expansion of GIS, people relied on a paper map. People would then estimate the time it would
take to travel using distance divided by miles per hour, not taking into traffic or weather, because
the data was simply not integrated.
GIS is a relatively new tool to political science, but it has been used in politics since the founding
of the country. For example, when carving out new states longitudinal and latitudinal lines were
used to denote the boundaries of states. State legislatures, when drawing new congressional
districts or state legislative districts, would use maps to see how the party in power to give itself
the upper hand in electing their peers. Campaigns would use maps of polling locations to
determine where to deploy the volunteers to help encourage people to vote. All these are
examples of our rudimentary GIS, this case maps merged with political knowledge, was used.
Researchers are increasingly using GIS to conduct and visually present research findings. For
example, how would you decide where to build a nuclear power plant? Now, this may not seem
like a political question initially, more a technical or engineering question but in reality, the
country of Nigeria is actively considering whether and where to build nuclear power plants. The
Nigerian Atomic Energy Commission is tasked with answering this question. Using GIS
software, Eluyemi et. al. (2020) compare proposed sites by the Commission with all available
tectonic maps. In their research article, they present 12 figures to help geographically
contextualize potential nuclear power plant sites. With this information now publicly available,
government officials, interest groups, and the people can more meaningfully engage in a debate
about the utility of this energy source.
In addition to GIS as a way to conduct and visually presented information, there is a related field
called spatial statistics. As was discussed in the chapter about Quantitative Research Methods,
traditional statistics has been a staple in political science research for decades. What makes
172
spatial statistics unique is that it integrates geocoded data into analyses. Why is geocoded data
important to integrate into statistical analyses? First, statistics relies on an assumption that units
of observation are independent and identically distributed. What this means is that how one
person responds to a survey question should have no bearing on how another person responds to
the same survey question. Or, what the state of California does with respect to gun control laws
has no influence on what the states of Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona do with respect to gun
control laws. In both of these examples, we can imagine how the actions of one person, or one
state may influence the actions of another person or another state.
Spatial statistics allow the researcher to mathematically connect units of observation together
based on their geographic location with one another. By making this connection, we can begin to
measure the influence that one person or state can have on another. This is important because we
are aware that such connections exist, but traditional statistics is unable to establish these
connections. By measuring this influence that units can have on one another, we can better
determine how strong the relationship is between a set of factors and the outcome that were
interested. For example, what if the state of California increases its gas tax? Would we expect to
see the states of Oregon, Nevada, or Arizona also increase their gas tax to keep up with
California? Or would we expect to see the opposite, where neighboring states would lower their
gas tax to demonstrate how competitive they were compared to the Golden State? By using
spatial statistics, we can consider that geographic proximity, while also considering how the state
demographics, or political party control may also influence this decision.
Section 10.4: How to Contribute to this OER
For the students who just finished reading this book, recognize that you can contribute to. Far too
often, the voices of students are overlooked when it comes to textbooks. This is interesting, isn’t
it. The traditional textbook is written by an individual professor or group of professors who have
the knowledge, skill, and ability to take a concept from their discipline and crystalize it into a
digestible set of materials. And the primary audience is students, so while students are viewed as
consumers of the textbook, they aren’t considered producers of the content. In some ways, this
makes no sense. Students who contribute to what they read. And they can.
You are personally invited to contribute to Introduction to Political Science Research Methods.
This textbook is an Open Education Resource with the CC-BY-NC license. What does this
mean? It means that the end of this book has been reached, but it is just the beginning for you to
contemplate how you want to contribute to this textbook.
Maybe a key term definition was unclear? Well, update it to make it clear. Maybe a chapter
section was under-explained? Ok, then add to it or re-write it all together. Maybe a picture would
have been worth a thousand words? Great, then find a CC-BY-NC picture that include it. Or
maybe we missed an entire topic that should be its own chapter? Superb, then draft a chapter and
add it to the resource.
173
The beauty about Open Education Resources is that they are freely available to everyone, which
invites everyone to participate in their cultivation. Up until very recently, this cultivation was
reserved for people who it made it through graduate school, join the ranks of the professoriate,
and maintained their membership in the academy. But, as with all things, changes afoot. What
this OER represents is an opportunity to shape knowledge and to create a broader understanding
of our world to the eyes of more, and more people.
If you are planning on contributing to this OER, then we encourage you to reach out to the
authors and co-authors of the various chapters. They will be more than happy to answer your
questions and encourage you to become a contributor. There are a variety of resources that can
help you get a lay of the OER land. We would strongly encourage you to visit the Academic
Senate for California Community Colleges’ Open Educational Resources Initiative webpage for
a host of information: https://www.asccc.org/directory/open-educational-resources-initiative-
oeri.
Contributor(s)
● 2019 version: Josh Franco
○ Peer Reviewers: TBD
References
Eluyemi, Ayodeji A., Sangeeta Sharma, Sunday J. Olotu, Dele E. Falebita, Adekunle A.
Adepelumi, Isaac A. Tubosun, Francis I. Ibitoye, and Saurabh Baruah. 2020. “A GIS-Based
Site Investigation for Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) in Nigeria.” Scientific African 7
(March): e00240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2019.e00240.
174
Appendices
Appendix #1: Course Identification (C-ID) Number System’s

Course Descriptor for Introduction to Political Science Research
Methods
DESCRIPTOR
Discipline: Political Science Sub-discipline:

General Course Title: Min. Units
Introduction to Political Science Research Methods 3
General Course Description:
This course surveys the research methods employed in political science. Research design,
experimental procedures, descriptive methods, instrumentation, and the collection,
interpretation, and reporting of research data, and the ethics of research are introduced.
Number: POLS 160 Suffix:

Required Prerequisites or Co-Requisites 30
Advisories/Recommended Preparation 31
1. Completion of, or concurrent enrollment in, any introductory level social or behavioral
science course
2. Elementary Statistics (ANOVA included) (C-ID MATH 110 or C-ID SOCI 125)
Course Content:
1. History and development of the empirical study of politics.
2. The scientific method.
3. Theories, hypotheses, variables, and units.
4. Conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of political concepts.
5. Elements of research design including the logic of sampling.
6. Qualitative and quantitative research methods and means of analysis
7. Research ethics.
30
Prerequisite or co-requisite course need to be validated at the CCC level in accordance with Title 5 regulations; co-requisites for
CCCs are the linked courses that must be taken at the same time as the primary or target course.
31
Advisories or recommended preparation will not require validation but are recommendations to be considered by the student prior
to enrolling.
175
Laboratory Activities (if applicable): N/A
Course Objectives: At the conclusion of this course, the student should be able to:
1. Explain the basic principles of the scientific method.

2. Demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between theory and research.
3. Demonstrate knowledge of general research designs, experimental and non-
experimental methods, and standard research practices.
4. Select and defend research designs and data collection procedures appropriate to test
hypotheses.
5. Critically evaluate reports of research findings, assess the generalizability of research
results, and synthesize a body of research findings.
6. Explain the ethical treatment of participants in research and the institutional
requirements for conducting research.
Methods of Evaluation:
May include as appropriate:
In-class or take-home examinations

Research papers or projects
Written assignments
Analytical papers
Simulations
Oral presentations
Participation in class discussions and debates
Sample Textbooks, Manuals, or Other Support Materials
Any college-level introduction to research methods in political science or the social sciences
textbook including, but not limited to
Babbie. The Basics of Social Research

Babbie. The Practice of Social Research
Brians, Willnat, Manheim, and Rich. Empirical Political Analysis
Johnson and Reynolds. Political Science Research Methods
Monroe. Essentials of Political Research
Salkind. Exploring Research.
Salkind. Statistics for People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics
May also include supplementary materials such as, but not limited to, primary sources,
readers, research reports, statistical software, etc.
176
References
Ackerly, Brooke, and Jacqui True. 2010. Doing Feminist Research in Political and Social
Science. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Agresti, A., and B. Finlay. 1997. “Introduction to Multivariate Relationships.” Statistical
Methods for the Social Sciences, Ed 3: 356–72.
Atabey, Gullu, and Derya Hasta. 2018. “Political Participation, Political Efficacy and Gender.”
Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.7816/nesne-06-13-10.
Baglione, Lisa A. 2018. Writing a Research Paper in Political Science: A Practical Guide to
Inquiry, Structure, and Methods. CQ Press.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=byh_DwAAQBAJ.
Bird, Alexander. 2018. “Thomas Kuhn” ed. Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/thomas-kuhn/.
Booth, Wayne C., G. G. Colomb, and J. M. Williams. 2008. “The Craft of Research, 3" Ed.”
Chicago: The University of.
Brady, Henry E. 2019. “The Challenge of Big Data and Data Science.” Annual Review of
Political Science, May. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-090216-023229.
Brady, Henry E., and David Collier. 2004. “Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools.” Shared
Standards 330.
Broton, Katharine M., and Sara Goldrick-Rab. 2018. “Going Without: An Exploration of Food
and Housing Insecurity Among Undergraduates.” Educational Researcher 47 (2): 121–33.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17741303.
Carsey, Thomas M., and Jeffrey J. Harden. 2015. “Can You Repeat That Please?: Using Monte
Carlo Simulation in Graduate Quantitative Research Methods Classes.” Journal of Political
Science Education 11(1): 94–107.
Clausewitz, Carl von. 1956. On War. Jazzybee Verlag.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ceI6DwAAQBAJ.
Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2017. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Research. SAGE Publications.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=BXEzDwAAQBAJ.
Dahl, Robert A. 1961. “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument
to a Successful Protest.” The American Political Science Review 55 (4): 763–72.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-
David, Paul A. 1994. “Why Are Institutions the ‘carriers of History’?: Path Dependence and the
Evolution of Conventions, Organizations and Institutions.” Structural Change and
Economic Dynamics 5 (2): 205–20.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0954349X94900027.
Diez, David M., Christopher D. Barr, and Mine Cetinkaya-Rundel. 2012. OpenIntro Statistics.
OpenIntro. CC-BY-SA license
Dogan, Mattel. 1996. “The Hybridization of Social Science Knowledge.”
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/8090/library..?sequence=1.
Erel, Umut. 2018. “Saving and Reproducing the Nation: Struggles around Right-Wing Politics of
Social Reproduction, Gender and Race in Austerity Europe.” Women’s Studies International
Forum 68 (May): 173–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2017.11.003.
177
http://dspace.utamu.ac.ug:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/172/LIVRO_Uwe%20Fl
ick%20-%20An_Introduction_To_Qualitative_Research.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Frank, Malcolm, Paul Roehrig, and Ben Pring. 2017. What To Do When Machines Do
Everything: How to Get Ahead in a World of AI, Algorithms, Bots, and Big Data. John
Wiley & Sons. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=GYfZDQAAQBAJ.
Fransman, Jude, and Kate Newman. 2019. “Rethinking Research Partnerships: Evidence and the
Politics of Participation in Research Partnerships for International Development.” Journal of
International Development 31 (7): 523–44.
Gibbs, Graham R. 2008. Analysing Qualitative Data. SAGE.
Godrej, Farah. 2011. “Cosmopolitan Political ThoughtMethod, Practice, Discipline.”
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199782062.001.0001.
Gorard, Stephen. 2013. Research Design: Creating Robust Approaches for the Social Sciences.
SAGE Publications.
Guy Peters, B. 2019. Institutional Theory in Political Science, Fourth Edition: The New
Institutionalism. Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=qY6ODwAAQBAJ.
Hager, Anselm, and Hanno Hilbig. 2019. “Do Inheritance Customs Affect Political and Social
Inequality?” American journal of political science 63(4): 758–73.
Heaney, Michael T., and John Mark Hansen. 2006. “Building the Chicago School.” The
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055406062460.
Hegre, Håvard, and Nicholas Sambanis. 2006. “Sensitivity Analysis of Empirical Results on
Civil War Onset.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (4): 508–35.
Methods. CQ Press.
Methods. CQ Press.
Junk, Wiebke Marie. 2019. “When Diversity Works: The Effects of Coalition Composition on
the Success of Lobbying Coalitions.” American journal of political science 63(3): 660–74.
Klotz, Audie, and Cecelia Lynch. 2007. “International Relations in a Constructed World.” New
York: ME Sharpe.
Konnikova, Maria. 2015. “How a Gay-Marriage Study Went Wrong.” New Yorker .
https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research/vpr/rsi/readings/Research-Misconduct-
SS.pdf.
Lupia, Arthur, and Colin Elman. 2014. “Openness in Political Science: Data Access and
178
Research Transparency.” PS: Political Science & Politics.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096513001716.
Lynch, Cecelia. 2013. Interpreting International Politics. Routledge.
Lynch, Cecilia. 2014. “Interpreting Politics.” London: Taylor & Francis.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1967. “The Communist Manifesto. 1848.” Trans. Samuel
Moore. London: Penguin.
http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/368/368CommunistManifestoPtItable.pdf.
Masi, Tania, and Roberto Ricciuti. 2019. “The Heterogeneous Effect of Oil Discoveries on
Democracy.” Economics and Politics 31 (3): 374–402.
McDermott, R. 2002. “Experimental Methods in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political
Science. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.polisci.5.091001.170657.
McDermott, Rose. n.d. “Experimental Methodology in Political Science.” Political Analysis: An
Annual Publication of the Methodology Section of the American Political Science
Association 10 (4): 325–42. Accessed December 14, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/10.4.325.
McGovern, Patrick J. 2010. “Perestroika in Political Science: Past, Present, and Future: Editor’s
Introduction.” PS, Political Science & Politics 43 (4): 725–27.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096510001307.
Mill, John Stuart. 1910. “Utilitarianism, Liberty, Representative Government (London.” Dent,
Contemporary Dentistry 319.
Monroe, Kristen Renwick. 2005. Perestroika!: The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. Yale
University Press. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=veelUVVHg8MC.
North, Douglass C. 1991. “Institutions.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives: A Journal of the
American Economic Association 5 (1): 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.97.
O’Neil, Patrick H. 2017. Essentials of Comparative Politics. W. W. Norton.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=2lZUswEACAAJ.
Pearl, Judea, Madelyn Glymour, and Nicholas P. Jewell. 2016. Causal Inference in Statistics: A
Primer. John Wiley & Sons.
Pearl, Judea. 1995. “Causal Diagrams for Empirical Research.” Biometrika 82 (4): 669–88.
Pearl, Judea. 2009. Causality. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.
Peters, Michael A. 2017. “Technological Unemployment: Educating for the Fourth Industrial
Revolution.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 49 (1): 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1177412.
Plescia, Carolina, Sylvia Kritzinger, and Lorenzo De Sio. 2019. “Filling the Void? Political
Responsiveness of Populist Parties.” Representations , July, 1–21.
Powner, Leanne C. 2014. Empirical Research and Writing: A Political Science Student’s
Practical Guide. CQ Press.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=a1IvBQAAQBAJ.
Rhodes, R. A. W., Sarah A. Binder, and Bert A. Rockman. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of
Political Institutions. OUP Oxford.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=vjQ_AwAAQBAJ.
Schaffer, Frederic Charles. 2000. Democracy in Translation: Understanding Politics in an
Unfamiliar Culture. Cornell University Press.
Shadish, William R., Cook, Thomas D., and Donald T. Campbell. 2001. Experimental and
Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Cengage Learning.
179
Smith, Adam. 1937. “The Wealth of Nations [1776].” na.
https://mi01000971.schoolwires.net/cms/lib05/MI01000971/Centricity/Domain/440/Primary
%20Source%20Articles%20Smith%20and%20Marx.pdf.
Smith, Rogers M., and Kristen Renwick Monroe. 2005. “Of Means and Meaning: The
Challenges of Doing Good Political Science.” Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in
Political Science, 525–33.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 2010. “‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’revised Edition, from the
‘History’ chapter of Critique of Postcolonial Reason.” Can the Subaltern Speak?:
Reflections on the History of an Idea, 21–78.
Thornton, Stephen. 2019. “Karl Popper” ed. Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/popper/.
Trochim, William, and James P. Donnelly. 2006. The Research Methods Knowledge Base.
Atomic Dog.
Warren, Kenneth F. 2008. Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior.
SAGE Publications.
Wikipedia contributors. 2019. “Philosophy of Science.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_science&oldid=920222697
(October 10, 2019).
Wong, Tom K. 2015. Rights, Deportation, and Detention in the Age of Immigration Control.
Stanford University Press.
Wong, Tom K. 2017. The Politics of Immigration: Partisanship, Demographic Change, and
American National Identity. Oxford University Press.
Yanow, Dvora, and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea. 2011. Interpretive Approaches to Research
Design: Concepts and Processes. Taylor & amp.
Yom, Sean. 2018. “Analytic Transparency, Radical Honesty, and Strategic Incentives.” PS,
Political Science & Politics 51 (2): 416–21.
Youngblut, J. M. 1994a. “A Consumer’s Guide to Causal Modeling: Part I.” Journal of Pediatric
Nursing 9 (4): 268–71.
Youngblut, J. M. 1994b. “A Consumer’s Guide to Causal Modeling: Part II.” Journal of
Pediatric Nursing 9 (6): 409–13.
180
Index
American Political Science Association, 2, interviews, 116, 127
4, 8, 17, 18, 29, 160 Journal Article Analysis, 9
behavioralism, 25 Journal articles, 8
Big data, 33 Machine learning, 33
case study, 124 measurement, 86
causal modeling, 71 Neoinstitutionalism, 25
causation, 56 Open Education Resource, 2, 3, 5, 17, 173
concept mapping, 81 operationalization, 83
concepts, 79 parsimonious, 64
conceptualization, 79 philosophy of science, 41
correlation, 56 political science, 3, 22, 112
descriptive statistics, 134 Qualitative methods, 27
digital ethnography, 123 qualitative research, 112, 126
documentary sources, 119 quantitative method, 130
ethics, 154 Quantitative methods, 28
ethnographic research, 121 research design, 97, 98, 108, 109
experimental design, 98 Research Paper, 13
Experimental political science, 31 sampling, 103
falsifiability, 64 scientific method, 6, 26, 27, 40, 42, 44, 45,
four conditions of causality, 59 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 64, 114, 153, 159
four scales of measurement, 131 statistical inference, 140
geographic information systems, 172 Subfields of political science, 4
Google Scholar, 15 theory, 60
Institutional Review Boards, 154 unit of analysis, 69
Institutionalism, 23 units of observation, 69
interpreting statistical tables, 144 variables, 66
181
View publication stats

Introduction to Political Science Research Methods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction to Political Science Research Methods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Introduction to Political Science Research Methods: An Open Education

Book · June 2020

Dino Bozonelos Josue Franco

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Political Economy of Religious Tourism View project

Muslim Americans & Religious Tourism View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Josh Franco, Ph.D., Cuyamaca College

Introduction to Political Science Research Methods is an Open Education Resource licensed

PDF Version ISBN-13: 978-1-7351980-0-2

About the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges

About the ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative

Josh Franco, Ph.D.

Dr. Josh Franco

Dr. Charlotte Lee

Dr. Dino Bozonelos

Dr. Steven Cauchon

Section 1.1: Welcome

Section 1.2: The Social Network of Political Science

Figure 1-1: Visualization of the social network of political science

Section 1.3: Organization of the Book

This textbook, Introduction to Political Science Research Methods (IPSRM), is an Open

Chapter Chapter Title Authors

Section 1.4: Analyzing Journal Articles

Figure 1-3: Visualization of network of APSA, publishers, and journals

Figure 1-5: Visualization of puzzle

Positive debates can exist on a conceptual, operational, or measurement level. Conceptual

Section 1.5: Research Paper Project Management

Figure 1-6: Visualization of research paper parts

Summary of Section 1.1: Welcome

Summary of Section 1.3: Organization of this Book

Summary of Section 1.4: Analyzing Journal Articles

Summary of Section 1.5: Research Paper Project Management

Critical Thinking Questions

Suggestions for Further Study

Section 2.1: Brief History of the Empirical Study of Politics

Section 2.2: The Institutional Wave

Why do you need to know about this?

Section 2.3: The Behavioral Wave

Section 2.4: Currents: Qualitative versus Quantitative

Section 2.5: Currents: Normative and Positive Views

Figure 2-1: Visual comparison of positive view and normative view.

Section 2.6: Emerging Wave: Experimental Political Science

Section 2.7: Emerging Wave: Big Data and Machine Learning

Summary of Section 2.1: Brief History of Empirical Study of Politics

Summary of Section 2.2: The Institutional Wave

Summary of Section 2.3: The Behavioral Wave

Summary of Section 2.4: Currents: Qualitative versus Quantitative

Summary of Section 2.5: Currents: Politics: Normative and Positive Views

Suggestions for Further Study

Section 3.1: Philosophy of Science

Model 2: Observation-Theory-Hypothesis-Data: Our second model builds on the previous

Model 3: Observation-Theory-Hypothesis-Data-Analysis-Update: Our third model continues

Section 3.3: Applying the Scientific Method to Political

Do Inheritance Customs Affect Political and Social Inequality?

When Diversity Works: The Effects of Coalition Composition on the Success of

Evaluating the Conflict-Reducing Effect of UN Peacekeeping Operations

Sentence 2 states that looking just at intensity, or duration, or recurrence, or diffusion by

Observation Society and Lobbyists, coalitions, United Nations,

Theory Equal inheritance Coalition composition Peacekeeping

Hypothesis “But do equal “Based on pluralist -NIA-

Data Country-specific: 50 issues in five -NIA-